Napolitano on an evil, crazed statist

[77zach]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/judge-napolitano-crazed-sessions/


Don't make that suppressor in your garage lol.

 

[countryclubjoe]

The war on drugs, 21st century style.. Sessions is an old brain dead petty tyrant..

The world is under a cyber attack and the troglodyte one is concerning himself and the law enforcement community, with policing petty, victimless crime.. A waste of resources in my humble opinion.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[JamesCanby]

The war on drugs, 21st century style.. Sessions is an old brain dead petty tyrant..

The world is under a cyber attack and the troglodyte one is concerning himself and the law enforcement community, with policing petty, victimless crime.. A waste of resources in my humble opinion.

My .02
Regards
CCJ

Yep, we get it. You hate our President and his appointees and anyone who stands for enforcing our laws...

 

[countryclubjoe]

Yep, we get it. You hate our President and his appointees and anyone who stands for enforcing our laws...

You constantly state, (WE), when were you appointed to speak for anyone, other than yourself?

You also state, You, meaning, ME, that I hate Trump and his appointees... First off, you know nothing about my feelings.. " I hate no one".. I may hate someones politics or ideas however that is far from hating the person/persons.. Please try to not equate, your bigotry and ignorance unto me.

I hate no-one personally, however, I can and do hate their ideologies, while still respecting said ideologies and said persons..

Now, please respect the OP, and attempt an intelligent reply to the thread.

My .02
CCJ

 

[77zach]

Yep, we get it. You hate our President and his appointees and anyone who stands for enforcing our laws...

You don't get it. I voted for Trump, and as a rule I don't vote so as not to be complicit in their war crimes and bad policies. Just because Congress makes a "law" doesn't mean it's ok to enforce it. Legal and ethical are not synonymous, despite what we're taught in tax funded skools.

 

[JamesCanby]

You constantly state, (WE), when were you appointed to speak for anyone, other than yourself?

You also state, You, meaning, ME, that I hate Trump and his appointees... First off, you know nothing about my feelings.. " I hate no one".. I may hate someones politics or ideas however that is far from hating the person/persons.. Please try to not equate, your bigotry and ignorance unto me.

I hate no-one personally, however, I can and do hate their ideologies, while still respecting said ideologies and said persons..

Now, please respect the OP, and attempt an intelligent reply to the thread.

My .02
CCJ

Oh, please ... do expound on examples of my "bigotry," and try not to be your usual pompous self.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Wouldn't that be a bit self paradoxical for ol' Joe? It's going to be hard for him to plagiarize an example of that.

 

[JamesCanby]

Wouldn't that be a bit self paradoxical for ol' Joe? It's going to be hard for him to plagiarize an example of that.

+1. What would he do if he has to make things up himself...??

 

[countryclubjoe]

Oh, please ... do expound on examples of my "bigotry," and try not to be your usual pompous self.

You constantly are intolerant towards folks here, that are not boot licking yes people for LEOS..

I don't pretend to know everything, however I do know that I never earned a living from the tax paying dollars of others... Can you make the same claim?..

My .02
CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

Wouldn't that be a bit self paradoxical for ol' Joe? It's going to be hard for him to plagiarize an example of that.

Finally someone with a sense of humor..

 

[utbagpiper]

You constantly are intolerance towards folks here, that are not boot licking yes people for LEOS..

Has it ever occurred to you, or any other extreme libertarian types that just because someone isn't an anarchist-libertarian he isn't a "boot licking yes-[man] for LEOS"?

There is a lot of room for honest disagreement about what laws are proper vs which are an unjust infringement of rights before someone moves into the realm of "boot licker". That is a grossly offensive, derisive term to apply to another person.

I don't subscribe to an anarchist social theory. I believe anarchy yields far more human suffering that does a properly functioning government. But, I do not believe that human suffering is the goal of most anarchists. Anarchists/Libertarians may well be grossly misguided, but I do not believe they are evil. And so, much as I disagree with them, I try to avoid imparting evil motives to them. I try not to impugn their character. Their ability to explain their positions, their thinking skills, even their intelligence and command of history and language are all fair game. But one better have more than mere socio-political disagreement before impugning a man's character.

The term "boot licker" is an affront to character. It implies cowardice, lack of moral compass, complicity in evil. To use that term toward another is to demonstrate your utter contempt for him.

I commend this nice, short article in my local paper, the Deseret News on the topic of "Curing our contempt."

If those who share so much in common in support of RKBA can't or won't avoid holding each other in contempt, or imparting evil motives for every disagreement, who possibly can or will?

I don't pretend to know everything, however I do know that I never earned a living from the tax paying dollars of others... Can you make the same claim?..

Is there something inherently evil about earning a living providing honorable public service? From the men who built the InterState highway system, the guy who keeps our sewers running smoothly, to the geeks whose job it is to maintain the standard weights and measures for the nation, there are honorable, essential, constitutional public services that need to be performed. Most "sensible people" (as you recently typed) are quite happy to have firefighters and paramedics when they are needed, without regard to whether a particular unit is volunteer, privately run, or taxpayer funded. Most such people are thrilled that there is someone who investigates murders, muggings, and rapes, makes arrests, and mans the prisons that keep horribly violent scum away from the rest of us.

An intelligent, thoughtful man can disagree with some laws or how they are enforced without wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Charles

 

[77zach]

Has it ever occurred to you, or any other extreme libertarian types that just because someone isn't an anarchist-libertarian he isn't a "boot licking yes-[man] for LEOS"?

There is a lot of room for honest disagreement about what laws are proper vs which are an unjust infringement of rights before someone moves into the realm of "boot licker". That is a grossly offensive, derisive term to apply to another person.

I don't subscribe to an anarchist social theory. I believe anarchy yields far more human suffering that does a properly functioning government. But, I do not believe that human suffering is the goal of most anarchists. Anarchists/Libertarians may well be grossly misguided, but I do not believe they are evil. And so, much as I disagree with them, I try to avoid imparting evil motives to them. I try not to impugn their character. Their ability to explain their positions, their thinking skills, even their intelligence and command of history and language are all fair game. But one better have more than mere socio-political disagreement before impugning a man's character.

The term "boot licker" is an affront to character. It implies cowardice, lack of moral compass, complicity in evil. To use that term toward another is to demonstrate your utter contempt for him.

I commend this nice, short article in my local paper, the Deseret News on the topic of "Curing our contempt."

If those who share so much in common in support of RKBA can't or won't avoid holding each other in contempt, or imparting evil motives for every disagreement, who possibly can or will?



Is there something inherently evil about earning a living providing honorable public service? From the men who built the InterState highway system, the guy who keeps our sewers running smoothly, to the geeks whose job it is to maintain the standard weights and measures for the nation, there are honorable, essential, constitutional public services that need to be performed. Most "sensible people" (as you recently typed) are quite happy to have firefighters and paramedics when they are needed, without regard to whether a particular unit is volunteer, privately run, or taxpayer funded. Most such people are thrilled that there is someone who investigates murders, muggings, and rapes, makes arrests, and mans the prisons that keep horribly violent scum away from the rest of us.

An intelligent, thoughtful man can disagree with some laws or how they are enforced without wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Charles

I'll have to disagree partially. Disagreeing with me does not make one into a boot licker per se, but it does make that person thoughtless. If we use the example of drugs the state does not like, for example, it's both thoughtless and unethical to kidnap another person, throw them in a cage, and force his neighbors to pay for his imprisonment for mere possession or usage of arbitrarily illegal substances. It's especially striking when advocates are "pro gun" since their exact logic can be applied to, say, "gun violence" in Chicago and that jurisdictions crusade to hamstring and attack peaceful gun owners who don't abide by state and local gun laws.

 

[utbagpiper]

I'll have to disagree partially. Disagreeing with me does not make one into a boot licker per se, but it does make that person thoughtless.

And that, I'm afraid, is holding others in utter contempt while holding oneself in grossly unhealthy esteeem.

One might disagree with you on any number of issues and not be "thoughtless." Indeed, I once subscribed to your over-simplified, highly emotional view of drug laws. After much thought and maturity--including getting married and having children--I came to realize that while I find certain aspects of the enforcement and punishment offensive, I support laws against recreational drug use, gambling, and prostitution.

Why?

Certainly not because I care to inject my morals into others' truly private lives.

Rather, because I have come to conclude that certain conduct is not nearly so private nor victimless as some might claim. Even if specific examples of seemingly victimless conduct can be pointed out, in aggregate it is obvious that the conduct is not victimless and in most individual cases it is not victimless.

You disagree with me. That doesn't make you "thoughtless." It doesn't mean you want to see heroin dens full of innocent children whose lives and futures have been destroyed by addiction and premature death from overdose. It doesn't mean you are worthless pot head who wants to spend his life higher than a kite living on the public dole.

It means you look at available data differently than I do. You might place different relative values on personal liberty and workable society than I do. There might well be other legitimate differences.

Civility is really only put to the test when there is disagreement.

And presuming that anyone who disagrees with you on any given point is "thoughtless" is to fail that test entirely.

Charles

 

[solus]

sorry, let's not limit the the concept to impovershing clueless citizens due to their poor choice in recreational substances or having illicit firearms or 'improperly' having an agressive discussion with their partners or...the list is enormous of items that upset some segments of our society which have pushed emotionally biased state and federal laws to protect their slice of the American dream.

hundreds of citizens are brought into the criminal system due to whimsical volumes of laws they unintentionally violate where their money flow out of their pockets into supporting 'the system' with fines, bail, hiring bondsmen, probation offices, MH counselors - addiction, anger mgmt, DV, etc., and the list of enterprises being supported is all encompassing.

citizens broght into this life long system by violating some emotionally biased law through a traffic stop per se.

ipse

 

[WalkingWolf]

Oh, please ... do expound on examples of my "bigotry," and try not to be your usual pompous self.

Take it from the shoe shine boy, don't waste your time. He only posts to stir scat, not worth the time of day.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The problem is not Sessions so much as it is congress, and the presidents that made bad laws. I agree with Sessions, that violent criminals need to go to jail for long periods of time. It is up to congress, or the courts to change what is legal, and what is constitutional. Personally I think the drug war is a waste of money, but I am all for keeping bad guys in prison instead of making laws punishing good guys. I believe that Trump has instructed DOJ to go after gangs, and part of the business of gangs is drugs. Even if we legalize drugs we will still have gangs.

 

[solus]

And that, I'm afraid, is holding others in utter contempt while holding oneself in grossly unhealthy esteeem.

One might disagree with you on any number of issues and not be "thoughtless." Indeed, I once subscribed to your over-simplified, highly emotional view of drug laws. After much thought and maturity--including getting married and having children--I came to realize that while I find certain aspects of the enforcement and punishment offensive, I support laws against recreational drug use, gambling, and prostitution.

Why?

Certainly not because I care to inject my morals into others' truly private lives.

Rather, because I have come to conclude that certain conduct is not nearly so private nor victimless as some might claim. Even if specific examples of seemingly victimless conduct can be pointed out, in aggregate it is obvious that the conduct is not victimless and in most individual cases it is not victimless.

You disagree with me. That doesn't make you "thoughtless." It doesn't mean you want to see heroin dens full of innocent children whose lives and futures have been destroyed by addiction and premature death from overdose. It doesn't mean you are worthless pot head who wants to spend his life higher than a kite living on the public dole.

It means you look at available data differently than I do. You might place different relative values on personal liberty and workable society than I do. There might well be other legitimate differences.

Civility is really only put to the test when there is disagreement.

And presuming that anyone who disagrees with you on any given point is "thoughtless" is to fail that test entirely.

Charles

charles, your history of previous commentary(ies) towards those who challenge you have resulted in lengthy tirade and playground rants and members being called names...

yet, you continue...

ipse

 

[JamesCanby]

Take it from the shoe shine boy, don't waste your time. He only posts to stir scat, not worth the time of day.

Wise advice, already considered. He is now on Ignore, keeping company in the pit with Solus. I also intend to ignore the "Social" thread where most of the BS is posted.

 

[OC for ME]

I agree that irresponsible/illegal drug use is wrong. But such irresponsible/illegal drug use must be viewed on a case by case basis where government intervention is concerned.

Why do not the feds swoop down on Colorado, for example, and save all of the victims of those pot heads. The states that have decriminalized the use of certain drugs have done so because those citizens desired it to be so. A broad brush approach by federal LE to enforce broad brush federal laws that interferes in s citizen's affairs is detrimental to the individual liberty of the whole of society.

I think that the states, specifically local cops, are better equipped to determine who needs to be held to account for smoking a joint, and who is to be treated less harshly. The feds are more interested in political interests where drug use is concerned than any given citizen using drugs. The states, mostly local cops, are more interested in the more narrowly focused and immediate affects of drug use.

Leave this issue to the locals, they know what they are doing and know who they are dealing with.

 

[hammer6]

Why do not the feds swoop down on Colorado, for example, and save all of the victims of those pot heads.

because they know they can't do it.