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

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.

 

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

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?

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."

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

And why do you suppose that is?

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.

 

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

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.

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

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.

I'll take a look.


God bless.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Hey thanks!

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

Thanks again!

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?

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?

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.

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.

Ahhh...

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.

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.

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

Thanks again, my friend.




God bless.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.