How American ‘Conservatives’ Went from Fighting the Police State — to Worshiping It

[poncho]

While “police brutality and false claims of police abuse can be minimized,” isolated and increasingly rare violent deaths of on-duty police officers should be seen as part of a “war on police” being waged primarily by Marxist-aligned black radicals, contends The New American magazine. The September 21st issue of that fortnightly periodical, entitled “Police Under Fire,” inaugurates a renewed national “Support Your Local Police” campaign by the John Birch Society, which publishes the magazine.

The issue’s tone is set by the cover illustration, which depicts a police officer clad in black stormtrooper attire facing what appears to be a hostile demonstration. To the left of the faceless police officer can be seen the glaring face of a college-age Latino man.

That choice of cover photo stands in dramatic contrast to the one selected by The New American for its 1994 “Toward a Police State” special issue. The photo chosen for the earlier cover displayed an ATF officer clad in military fatigues, carrying an assault rifle, and glaring at the camera with ill intent.

< snip >

Ironically, the “Start-Up Manual” for the Support Your Local Police Committee endorses the militarization of law enforcement, and condemns efforts to reverse that trend. Activists participating in the SYLP campaign are told that when defense of the Bill of Rights conflicts with the institutional needs of the local police, they are to side with the latter:

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/co...-police-state-worshiping/#JtiUutZddrCcfh28.99

 

[Darrell C]

I guess we have a different idea as to what "rare means.

To me, from January to September...92 Police Officers killed does not speak of rarity.

That's up ten Police Officers from 2014, according to the chart.

Could you explain how many Police Officers have to die in order for us to consider any Police Officer dying in the line of duty...is not rare?


God bless.

 

[poncho]

I guess we have a different idea as to what "rare means.

To me, from January to September...92 Police Officers killed does not speak of rarity.

That's up ten Police Officers from 2014, according to the chart.

Could you explain how many Police Officers have to die in order for us to consider any Police Officer dying in the line of duty...is not rare?


God bless.

I guess we read charts differently also.

Using your chart . . .

In 2015 there were a total of 28 "firearms related" deaths compared to the number of "firearms related" deaths in the same period in 2014 which was 36.

36 - 28 = 8 less "firearms related" deaths this year compared to last year. According to your chart that's a 22% decrease.

The rest of the deaths were either "traffic related" or "other causes".

In the context of "violent deaths" the author of the article is speaking I believe we can rule the two later causes of death out of the "violent death" category.

Looking at other evidence . . .

HOW MANY OFFICERS HAVE DIED?

Gliniewicz was the eighth law enforcement officer shot and killed in the U.S. in the last month and the fourth in 10 days, according to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks officers' deaths so their names can be enshrined on a Washington, D.C., memorial. Steve Groeninger, a spokesman for the group, said four fatal shootings in recent days is a higher rate than usual.

IS THAT AN INCREASE?

No. Shooting deaths of officers are actually down 13 percent compared with the same January-to-September period in 2014. There were 30 shootings last year and 26 this year. Those figures include state and local officers, as well as federal agents. The figures also include two accidental shootings, Groeninger said. Suicides are not included.

Deaths have declined through the decades. The average number of officer shooting deaths for the first six months of each year — which is how the memorial fund gauges trends — was 62 through the 1970s.

The worst half-year period over the past five decades was in 1973, when 84 officers were shot and killed in the first six months alone. Through the early 2000s, the six-month average fell to 29.

Continue . . . http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/09/02/a-look-at-recent-law-enforcement-deaths-across-the-us

As I said in the other thread Darrell we should base our conclusions on evidence instead of emotional stimulus.

 

[Revmitchell]

 

[poncho]

I see you've raised your level of debate up a notch Rev from pejorative to pictures.

Reckon that's probably easier to do than explain why conservatives worship the police state.

Wonder what happened to Darrell?

That's weird, I noticed this "lack of consistency" from conservatives myself awhile back.

The publication displays not a hint of that commendable skepticism toward government power in dealing with the behavior of the State’s officially licensed agents of coercion. In a fashion quite typical of the authoritarian Right, TNA and the JBS stoutly condemn teachers’ unions while refraining from all criticism of the police unions that not only agitate for ever-increasing pay and benefits but have effectively immunized police from public accountability.

Either of you conservative gentlemen care to explain this apparent "lack of consistency" when it comes to police unions?

I find it a bit puzzling.

Are there any conservatives here that would care to explain why police unions have escaped the ire and condemnation of conservatives?

 

[poncho]

There has to be some anti union conservative here brave enough to explain this lack of consistency or at least step up to the plate to take the first shot at the messenger.

Any volunteers?

Darrell, where'd ya go you ok?

 

[Darrell C]

I guess we read charts differently also.

No kidding, I point out that Police Officers die and you rationalize their deaths to justify an OP that is absurd. lol

Using your chart . . .

It's not my chart, since we are to base our conclusions on evidence.

By the way...why doesn't that apply to OPs and spurious charges against political antagonists?

In 2015 there were a total of 28 "firearms related" deaths compared to the number of "firearms related" deaths in the same period in 2014 which was 36.

36 - 28 = 8 less "firearms related" deaths this year compared to last year. According to your chart that's a 22% decrease.

Could there be a correlation to a policy that takes Officer safety as priority one?

And would you admit that such a policy inevitably saves lives? The lives of the men and women who put their hinder parts on the line for you every day?

And would you admit that your response shows a lack of concern for the lives of those in Law Enforcement?

Would you admit that statistics vary from year to year in issues like these?

Just for my own druthers, when it comes to the lives of Police Officers and those who reject their authority, I am going to root for the Officer every time. When we see a situation where a shooting is unjustified, I am going to root for the Law every time, and hope Justice is served on those who abuse their authority.

But I have no sympathy for those who, because they spit in the face of Law and Order...get themselves killed because they are not compliant. That's not a Police State, that is simple math.

"Hey, you Police Officers, go out and catch the bad guys, but when you think someone is a bad guy, let him take control of the situation."

The rest of the deaths were either "traffic related" or "other causes".

And how many of these accidents were during a chase? And besides that, in view are the deaths of officers in the line of duty.

They are not listing all police officers who died of natural causes. They don't set up memorial funds for those guys and gals...they give a pension to the surviving spouse.

In the context of "violent deaths" the author of the article is speaking I believe we can rule the two later causes of death out of the "violent death" category.

So again, can we make a correlation against a stricter policy in dealing with suspects and fewer deaths in the line of duty?

Looking at other evidence . . .

HOW MANY OFFICERS HAVE DIED?

Gliniewicz was the eighth law enforcement officer shot and killed in the U.S. in the last month and the fourth in 10 days, according to the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, which tracks officers' deaths so their names can be enshrined on a Washington, D.C., memorial. Steve Groeninger, a spokesman for the group, said four fatal shootings in recent days is a higher rate than usual.

8 killed in a month.

And correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this evidence actually contradict your reasoning?

I know that in my city, Richmond Virginia, we were the Murder Capital one year. Since then, we have had some pretty good Law Enforcement Officers who have come in and cleaned Richmond up. We still get years where homicides fluctuate, and it gets high, but in large part there has been an improvement.

Had an Uncle that was a U.S. Marshall, and while driving through a neighborhood once, he said, "Never go into that neighborhood, it has the highest concentration of drug trafficking in the U.S."

Today, that same neighborhood...is completely renovated. New homes where shabby and falling down houses stood, much safer, and who do we think helped make that happen?

Law Enforcement.

My hats off to those guys, they do a tough job.

IS THAT AN INCREASE?

No. Shooting deaths of officers are actually down 13 percent compared with the same January-to-September period in 2014. There were 30 shootings last year and 26 this year. Those figures include state and local officers, as well as federal agents. The figures also include two accidental shootings, Groeninger said. Suicides are not included.

Great. Perhaps they should...keep doing what they're doing?

Evidence supports whatever policy they are conducting is saving lives of Law Enforcement Officials, right?

Deaths have declined through the decades.

Great. Perhaps they should...keep doing what they're doing?

The average number of officer shooting deaths for the first six months of each year — which is how the memorial fund gauges trends — was 62 through the 1970s.

Now stop, Poncho< for just a minute and consider what you just posted.

Isn't the evidence...appalling?

62 deaths as an average...for the first 6 months?

Can you stop using the "evidence" to blast Law Enforcement to actually consider the evidence you are using?

The worst half-year period over the past five decades was in 1973, when 84 officers were shot and killed in the first six months alone. Through the early 2000s, the six-month average fell to 29.

And why do you suppose that is?

Continue . . . http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/09/02/a-look-at-recent-law-enforcement-deaths-across-the-us

As I said in the other thread Darrell we should base our conclusions on evidence instead of emotional stimulus.

I agree, and we should also understand the evidence, and when it completely refutes the objective it is being manipulated to bring...

...own up to it.

The fact is that not only have you not shown that "conservatives worship" of some imaginative "Police State," not only have you shown your railings against Law Enforcement show doesn't consider the atrocious death toll in a context of concern for Law Enforcement, but the "evidence" you bring to the table should serve only to make us sympathetic to the very real danger that members of Law Enforcement face...

...every day.

The evidence shows that the policy of strict enforcement in dealing with suspects...is saving lives.

Anyone who would begrudge those saved lives in favor of someone who isn't smart enough to comply. or intentionally is belligerent because they have the same mentality you express in contempt of Law and Order, well, I have no sympathy for them, either.

The Police Officer r a possible Criminal?

My vote goes to the Police Officer every time. Questionable shooting? Better they make an error once in a while than they lose their own lives.

Here's a little advice to possible future criminals or anyone who engages in behavior that might arouse the interest of a Police Officer: look, if a Police Officer says "freeze" or "stay where you are, don't move," that is not the time...to decide to comb your hair.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Wonder what happened to Darrell?

Hey thanks, glad to see my whereabouts are a concern to you. Kind of gives me a fuzzy feeling right in heart.

That's weird, I noticed this "lack of consistency" from conservatives myself awhile back.

It might be that what you are experiencing is the result of delusions of grandeur, lol. That your points are actually of interest to people.

Or it might just be impatience. I have a number of irons in the fire on this forum, mostly Theological, and had to work a little yesterday.

When I end up in the Political Section, it is usually due to a lag in Theological Discussion.

And by the way, I would like to invite you to join in on that. It is just my belief that our level of understanding Theologically speaking will greatly influence our Political views.

Either of you conservative gentlemen care to explain this apparent "lack of consistency" when it comes to police unions?

I have not had the chance to familiarize myself with it. Not sure I will this morning, just passing by. Perhaps.

I find it a bit puzzling.

That may be because you are a bit hasty in thinking that the issue is avoided, rather than considering that it simply hasn't been looked at yet, or that your antagonists have been busy.

Are there any conservatives here that would care to explain why police unions have escaped the ire and condemnation of conservatives?

I'll take a look.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

There has to be some anti union conservative here brave enough to explain this lack of consistency or at least step up to the plate to take the first shot at the messenger.

Any volunteers?

Darrell, where'd ya go you ok?

Here I am, lol.

Before taking a look at whatever it is you are speaking about, I will preface anything I might say with the fact that I am not up on Unions, apart from my neighbor being a member of an Electrical Union. He told me of a cousin, who while awaiting to be placed back at work, was receiving union benefits as well as getting subsistence from the State.

I don't think that is right.

I don't get subsistence when gets slow as a small business owner, though to be honest, I have never inquired as to whether or not I could.

So relax, Poncho, maybe there is conservative who might find this interesting. None of this beats Theological Discussion, and I invite you, again, to join in on some of those. Give Politics a rest for a while maybe.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Poncho, I will need you to post a link to whatever "Union" scandal you are referring to.

Might be a good idea to post a couple, one of the links you posted received a warning from my security program, and I try to avoid infecting my system if I can avoid it. That happens on some sites.


God bless.

 

[poncho]

WoW! You must have got a good night's sleep to be so energetic this morning Darrell.

I never figured you'd admit to making a simple reading and mathematical error but I never expected you'd go to all the trouble to write a whole novel to justify it. Wears me out just looking at all those strawman arguments surely you must be in need of a rest after setting them all up and knocking them down all by yourself.

A simple "oops I must have been in too much of a hurry to defend the police state to actually understand what I was reading" would have sufficed. :smilewinkgrin:

I was worried for your safety man, I thought one of those strawmen you keep around to prove all your points to yourself might have got you. Whew! Glad you're ok. :thumbsup:

Something I am curious about. Do you always argue both sides of a debate like this? Evidently you don't even need to hear what your opponent has to say. His argument is whatever you say it is no matter what he says it is. WoW! :tonofbricks:

 

[Darrell C]

WoW!

Hey thanks!

You must have got a good night's sleep to be so energetic this morning Darrell.

There's that warm fuzzy feeling again, missed after being gone for a few hours.

Thanks again!

I never figured you'd admit to making a simple reading and mathematical error but I never expected you'd go to all the trouble to write a whole novel to justify it.

Not sure what error you perceive, lol.

I have never changed my view that all of the Police Officers listed were Police Officers who died in the line of duty.

And could you show me where you have come even close to showing that "Conservatives worship the Police State?" That there is a Police State?

Can you justify your despising of people who put their lives on the line...for your sake?

OR perhaps, and don't get shaken by this request...could you just address the points?

Wears me out just looking at all those strawman arguments surely you must be in need of a rest after setting them all up and knocking them down all by yourself.

I guess I will have to guess what you consider a straw man until you substantiate the charge.

Not to give you an out in your deflection, but perhaps you could present at least one?

A simple "oops I must have been in too much of a hurry to defend the police state to actually understand what I was reading" would have sufficed.

Not sure why defending the Police, which is what I did, should be considered an "oops."

And not sure why you saying Conservatives worship a police state, or that there is a police state...equates to a rational view.

Not sure why you do not address the points made.

Not sure why Taco Bell used to be made out of bricks but isn't any more.

But I am sure that I can address posts, address each post, and in doing so at least present why I believe something, or take a particular view.

I was worried for your safety man, I thought one of those strawmen you keep around to prove all your points to yourself might have got you.

Well, explain how the concept of a less tolerant police force in regards to individuals (who we repeatedly see as being belligerent to Law Enforcement) is actually saving the lives (of at least one group in the equation that at least can be given the doubt as to motivation for their actions) of Police Officers...

...is a straw man.

All I did was examine the same data you provided to prove your point and the fact that my perspective is different reaps derision.

Let me explain something to you, Poncho: if anyone has a reason to hate the Police, I would think someone who has been beaten and jailed by them might be a good candidate.

I was. Beaten, jailed, and whether you believe it or not, had attempts made on my life by some of those Officers. I was thrown off a cliff, believe it or not.

Does that mean because of the actions of those guys...I condemn all Law Enforcement, or throw Law and Order in this country out with the trash?

Nope.

Whew! Glad you're ok. :thumbsup:

Ahhh...

Something I am curious about. Do you always argue both sides of a debate like this?

I only argue what I see as valid. As we all think we do.

How am I arguing both sides? Addressing the points would take your statement from spurious accusation to substantiated charges.

Evidently you don't even need to hear what your opponent has to say. His argument is whatever you say it is no matter what he says it is.

I heard you: Conservatives worship the Police State.

The problem is that this is not true for two reasons: (1) Conservatives are diverse in their views, and (2)...

...there is no Police State.

If there were we would have seen more heads cracked in recent riots.

And of course I am sure I could list a few more reasons why the Thread is ridiculous, but, that warm fuzzy feeling is just keeping me from getting too carried away in my responses, lol.

WoW! :tonofbricks:

I love it when my posts get this reaction, lol.

Thanks again, my friend.




God bless.

 

[poncho]

Do me a favor Darrell?

Seeing as how you're bound and determined to use all three pages of this thread up telling me what my argument is and making the poor readers witness you building one strawmen after another to knock down . . . would you be so kind as to compose my whole argument for me and send it to me through the private message feature?

That way I can at least have a chance to review it before you tell me what it is in an open forum and to give someone else a chance to post a reply before the thread is closed.

Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

And for your edification and future reference . . . This Is Your Logical Fallacy

I've been around here long enough to know that honest rational debates are few and far between but still it would be nice to think we might have one without having to fill up every page in a short thread with logical fallacies, accusations, counter accusations, pejoratives, innuendos and big silly images just to make ourselves feel all "warm and fuzzy" about ourselves.

 

[Darrell C]

Do me a favor Darrell?

Seeing as how you're bound and determined to use all three pages of this thread up telling me what my argument is and making the poor readers witness you building one strawmen after another to knock down . . . would you be so kind as to compose my whole argument for me and send it to me through the private message feature?

That way I can at least have a chance to review it before you tell me what it is in an open forum and to give someone else a chance to post a reply before the thread is closed.

Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

And for your edification and future reference . . . This Is Your Logical Fallacy

I've been around here long enough to know that honest rational debates are few and far between but still it would be nice to think we might have one without having to fill up every page in a short thread with logical fallacies, accusations, counter accusations, pejoratives, innuendos and big silly images just to make ourselves feel all "warm and fuzzy" about ourselves.

Sorry, I don't PM much, and do not see how that would be any different than addressing them in Open Forum.

And am I missing something? I don't see anything that puts the thread in danger of being closed.

A little advice can insure it won't be: Stop using terms like "logical fallacies, accusations, counter accusations, pejoratives, innuendos and big silly images" (and you have me stumped on the big silly images thing, lol) and simply address the points. And if they are used, if you can show they are used in an honest manner (meaning a straw-man is actually pointed out, for example, rather than a valid point being made) I doubt seriously any Moderator would close the thread. This is a debate forum after all, remember?

If that policy is adopted, I guarantee we will have as many pages as we like.

Just pick one point I have made and we can thresh it out.

And have to get going, but may check in later.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

And for your edification and future reference . . . This Is Your Logical Fallacy

Okay, this is an example: you say I misrepresented you, but you do not show how. That is your burden, Poncho. When we debate it is not just enough to say someone is in error or guilty of something (in our perception), we need to, if anyone is going to learn anything, also make them understand where they erred.

If I misrepresented you, then I am in error, so your burden is to show me where I did that.


And hey, don't be derisive about the warm fuzzies...

God bless.

 

[poncho]

Sorry, I don't PM much, and do not see how that would be any different than addressing them in Open Forum.

And am I missing something? I don't see anything that puts the thread in danger of being closed.

Apparently you missed the "three page rule", see below.

https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=1

A little advice can insure it won't be: Stop using terms like "logical fallacies, accusations, counter accusations, pejoratives, innuendos and big silly images" (and you have me stumped on the big silly images thing, lol) and simply address the points.

That is the point I'm addressing Darrell. Most of your page long posts are filled with strawman arguments, accusations, innuendos and pejoratives. I'm not going to respond to them. It's that simple. You know what they are when you're typing them. If you find yourself creating a strawman or making an accusation stop typing and think of another way to phrase whatever it is you're trying to say.

And if they are used, if you can show they are used in an honest manner (meaning a straw-man is actually pointed out, for example, rather than a valid point being made) I doubt seriously any Moderator would close the thread. This is a debate forum after all, remember?

I shouldn't have to point them out for you. And besides the way you mass produce them there wouldn't be any time left for me to make any points of my own if I were to try to point them all out.

Again I refer you to the "three page rule" above.

If that policy is adopted, I guarantee we will have as many pages as we like.

The policy is already adopted. Three pages is all we get in the news and current events forum. If they run longer it's because the Squire is either busy breaking up fights in another forum or is taking time off to rest up for the next battle with hard headed posters like me and a few others here. Of course there is the option of asking the Squire to move the thread from news and current events to the politics forum where we're allowed ten pages for debates. So far he's been pretty good about honoring those requests.

Just pick one point I have made and we can thresh it out.

Better yet why don't you just make a couple rational points that I can respond to instead of having to read through all the word filler and accusations to pick and choose one or two rational points out of?

And have to get going, but may check in later.

Be safe.

 

[Darrell C]

Apparently you missed the "three page rule", see below.

https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=1



That is the point I'm addressing Darrell. Most of your page long posts are filled with strawman arguments, accusations, innuendos and pejoratives. I'm not going to respond to them. It's that simple. You know what they are when you're typing them. If you find yourself creating a strawman or making an accusation stop typing and think of another way to phrase whatever it is you're trying to say.



I shouldn't have to point them out for you. And besides the way you mass produce them there wouldn't be any time left for me to make any points of my own if I were to try to point them all out.

Again I refer you to the "three page rule" above.



The policy is already adopted. Three pages is all we get in the news and current events forum. If they run longer it's because the Squire is either busy breaking up fights in another forum or is taking time off to rest up for the next battle with hard headed posters like me and a few others here.



Better yet why don't you just make a couple rational points that I can respond to instead of having to read through all the word filler and accusations to pick and choose one or two rational points out of?



Be safe.

I was not aware of that, thanks for the info.

What a great rule!

And, I can't decide what you think is a rational point, lol. Pick one.


God bless.

 

[poncho]

I was not aware of that, thanks for the info.

What a great rule!

And, I can't decide what you think is a rational point, lol. Pick one.


God bless.

What I consider a rational point is one that is supported by fact or evidence. Opinion is fine as long as it's supported by fact or evidence if it's only supported by another opinion, assumption, emotional attachment or lie I don't consider it rational. If it's based on fear I don't consider it rational.

For example if you say something like "Does that mean because of the actions of those guys...I condemn all Law Enforcement, or throw Law and Order in this country out with the trash?"

That's not rational. Why? You're assuming that I am against "all law enforcement officers" which I am not. I never told I was so you're making an assumption about me and what I believe without knowing what I believe.

That's an unfounded accusation. You also accused me of wanting to "throw Law and Order in this country out with the trash?" which isn't true.

I never said I believed that. You assumed it. Why you assumed that is my belief I can only guess. But I assure you that is not what I believe.

What I do believe is we have a problem that we need to examine without getting all emotional about it and taking sides. The only side I choose to be on is Christ's and the US constitution, the bill of rights. and our founding principles and common sense.

Do I want to see cops harmed? No. Do I care about their safety? Yes but I'm not going give up my civil rights or ask another to give his up because I'm frightened or stand by and let government "officials" violate someone else's civil rights so they can feel safer or do their job better.

If a citizens civil rights get in the way of the police doing their job tough. We shouldn't have to give up our right to free speech because they don't like what we have to say. We shouldn't have to give up the fourth amendment or our privacy to make their job easier. The fourth amendment was written to protect us from abusive authority.

Removing that protection only makes it easier for them to abuse the authority we gave them.

If they think we should give up our civil rights to make it easier on them or to keep them safer then I suggest they find another vocation or man up and do their job without making us into sheople that feel compelled to obey their every command.

Whenever anyone in government asks us to give up liberty in return for safety we should think long and hard about it. Totalitarian governments don't usually happen overnight they result from citizens giving little pieces of their liberty up over long periods of time until they have none left.

If you listen to some posters here you'd think anyone that questions authority is an anarchist that hates all forms of government especially the police.

Let me tell you the truth that's narrow minded bunkum and a lame excuse that fearful people use to justify their own acquiescence to tyranny.

Are you starting to see where I'm coming from now Darrell?