Browncoats and politics...

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, November 5, 2009 04:45
VIEWED: 6856
PAGE 4 of 6

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

This week I had a laby who hit a parked car and drove off. She was charged with improper backing (minor misdemeanor), but not the Hit Skip (Misdemeanor of the 1st Degree...6 months in jail). She got a break...then skipped out on court for two years. She shows up and demands an immediate trial. Screams at me, screams at the Magistrate, its my fault her kids are cold and hungry, etc. I dismissed her case...then had her charged with the Hit Skip and arrested, high cash bond (cause she don't come to court). Felt good to do what's right and I can still hear the screams (especially if I walk through the PD by the holding cells).

Then I had a fella got a driving under suspension for not paying a court fee ($15). He admitted he was guilty and was willing to plead. He paid his court fee, I dismissed the case, he keeps his license and his new job. Nice fella, shook my hand and was on his way.

---

"Lick my boots your damn scientist!" Sounds like the Brownshirt kid on the original V. He was cannibalized by his own alien reptiles (aka jews according to insane prosecutors of ADL's kosher hate laws of the British/Obama Empire), after an anonymous informant phoned in a false accusation. That's what happens without due process.
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=40673

No gubmit has authority to license driving (internal passport required by 6th Plank of Commie Manifesto), and no court has jurisdiction over traffic law. Anyone who claims otherwise is guilty of treason, according to US Supreme Court order. 75% of judges in USA lack a license to practice law (a crime), so how can they sentence you to jail for lack of license to drive?
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-trav
el-without.html

If somebody is injured by another driver, they have the right to sue in civil court for damages, no prosecutor nor traffic cops required at taxslave expense.


This is the future of National SOCIALISTS
www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Ironically the random draw puts her back in front of the same Magistrate.

---

Suurrreee it does.

The same way the "random" jury pool selection in certain districts results in an all-white jury pool despite them comprising less than 8% of the population demographic, yeahhhh.

And your slightly overblown, excessive emphasis in official doublespeak does kind of give you away, since that whole "screaming and cussing at me" bit is not only overdone, it's a standard-issue tactic used to discredit suspects, witnesses and victims of the systems abuse - cause when those accounts are cross compared with cruiser cam or internal surveillance tape those allegations usually fall apart right quickly, don't they ?

So lemme pose it to you in your own language.

"Would you like to revise your statement, sir ?"

-Frem

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

MAGONSDAUGHTER

"You don't have to believe what I believe, just believe in *something*."

I disagree with this definition:

Quote:

---

conservative - which to me means 'holding traditional values - opposed to change'

---

Conserve, to hold, preserve. Yes, this means values, but it also means resources. The negative slant on conservative would be 'stingy.'

Liberal is generous, therefore the opposite of conservative, and is about giving. Conservative opposition is that this giving requires using, and not conserving. The negative slant on liberal would be 'careless' or 'wasteful.'

This doesn't necessarily dictate a relationship to change, but it would indicate conservatives to be less prone to change, or at least, to rapid change.

Re: liberatarian ideals, either side could claim libertarian as rooted in their own ideology:

Liberals could say "we are being generous with the rights of the people"
Conservatives could say "we are conserving the rights of the people"

I support the Tories because they're consistently conservative, at least, far more so than the Republicans. They conserve resources, finances, the environment, civil liberties, sovereignty, etc.

I'm personally very conservative, and tend to support the underlying logic of conservatism. I abhor the use of credit, any centralization of power, or the universal assimilation of anyone. I have no use for public institutions in general, and am very concerned about all resources, personal, national, or global.

That doesn't mean that I support all positions of the conservative party. For instance, while I basically think that marriage should be about conserving the family, after watching several marriages fall apart because one member was gay, hence both unhappy, I decided there is no sense in forcing relationships which cannot hold, and gay people should marry gay people, if they so choose. I'm not the first conservative to ever support the position, and won't be the last. I suspect in time, everyone will support the position. Conservatives, I'll admit, are slower to change.

Certain 'conservative' positions make no sense to me, and perhaps are contradictory, it's just a matter of persistence of "packaged politics." Take the death penalty, for example. I can see the logic of Right to Life, as an issue of preservation of a natural order, and of a right, and harming no living thing is a religious belief for me, as a Taoist. But the death penalty seems to me to be completely contradictory to RTL, regardless of your ideological perspective. Even a judgmental old testament style christian who might argue "yes, you are born free of sin, but if you sin, you lose that god given right" or whatever, still would not hold up against the reality that the govt. is often wrong, and so random innocent people will be executed, a fundamental problem for RTL.

I think the left has similar contradictions in some of its positions. The liberal idea to give generously is coupled with a belief in equality. Towards this end, liberals usually believe in strong job growth. Yet the generosity dries up when it comes to small business, which creates the majority of all jobs, and is replaced with a taxation system that limits job creation. Of course, this is sold as "punishment to the rich" but the rich seem to do just fine, there are just fewer employees.

The driving factors behind such policies are pretty obvious: Conservatives think fear of a death penalty will reduce crime, and preserve social stability. Liberals think that in order to spend generously, they must tax heavily. Still, the positions are internally inconsistent. These are just a couple, I could easily pick out a dozen on either side.

Overall, I see the attraction of liberalism, in that I think it's more "well meaning" than conservatism, which could be seen as less "caring." I just think that it's a short sighted philosophy and doesn't yield long term stability.

An argument could be made that there's short term harm in some of these ideas: A liberal might say "let's help the poor, give them money

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well I did say I probably have a different definition of conservative than you do, probably different on liberal as well. I think American definitions of those terms differ to take in a whole spectrum of beliefs that I don't see as fitting.

In a very general sense, conservative is about preservation and liberal is about embracing change. People may hold a whole swathe of beliefs and see themselves (or be perceived) as being one or another, but their beliefs or values are really something else.

The belief in preventing centralisation is a very American belief, for example. It says a lot about your history as a nation, but those beliefs are not intrinsically conservative, any more than gun laws - which vary on the political spectrum from country to country, individualism - most liberals embrace this view as well.

So speaking of conservative and liberal isn't all that helpful - serves me a lot better than Dem or republican - which both seem hellishly conservative to me.

Politically, I see myself as a liberal - but my views have changed as I get older - socially, I'm probably more conservative, seeing the value in traditionally family structures (which doesn't mean I believe in persecuting those who don't choose to live that way)

I believe in checks and balances on those in power should also include businesses and corporations. I believe in capitalism but with regulation and safety nets. I don't believe in the ultimate right of the individual, but that we need to compromise the wellbeing of the many with the needs of the individual - a challenge I admit. I support a woman's right to choose whether to carry her baby to term, and that people should be able to choose who to have sex with who they please as long as that person is an adult and consenting. I believe that kids do best when they grow up with a mother and father (preferably their own) but can manage and do okay with a number of loving, caring adults bringing them up- but that they should always be able to know who their real parents are. I don't believe that an individual's right to happiness means they can stuff up the lives of everyone around them, especially not their children or any children. I believe negotiation is better than war, that court is a very bad place to solve most disputes, the UN may be flawed, but it's still a worthy ideal.

So am I a liberal or a conservative? Or just weird.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

By your definitions, D'rove, I can't think of a single conservative politician. The ones who supposedly want to "conserve" also tend to be the very ones leading the cheers of "Drill, baby, DRILL!" and handing out tax breaks on giant SUVs so that we can burn through whatever fossil fuels there are that much faster.

And as far as I can see, there isn't a single ACTUAL "conservative" supporting any of these people, either. You have your definition of Conservative, and what it means to you, but it seems it's been as sullied by its ill use by evil people as "fascist" was by Mussolini.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME