quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: "...growing escalation of force and violence of American law enforcement against non-existent threats; and then the ginning up of evidence to justify the excessive use of force retroactively; which will be met with growing dissent, protests, and violence ergo justifying the escalation in an endless cycle.
Faking evidence after the fact to justify violence against innocents...sounds like a conspiracy to me. Especially since this a -national- problem...right?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Yo Dogbreath I have an honest question for you, if someone was insulting of the Corps as a branch for substantiated reasons would you take it personally (and get offended) or would you recognize it as the interservice smacktalk that's generally rooted in some sort of legitimate point? (And only sorta pretend to be offended and join in)
I make fun of the Marine Corps all the time. Terminal Lance and The Duffel Blog (a sort of military Onion) are both pretty great sources of satire of some of the dumber stuff that happens. There was a pretty great article reacting to our former commandant (the worst we ever had, he's gone now) banning a newspaper from sale at the MCX because they published articles about some of the stuff he was up to: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/marine-commandant-hosts-book-burning-8th/
quote:“Marines! The age of arrogant journalistic intellectualism is now at an end!” exclaimed Amos over the flames. “We are doing the right thing at this midnight hour — to consign to the flames the unclean spirit of the past twelve years. This is a great, powerful, and symbolic act. Out of these ashes the phoenix of a new Corps will arise. Oh Century! Oh Science! It is a joy to be alive!”
posted
Or are the police (despite being a local organization) -openly- attacking innocents, planting evidence after the fact...independently of each other...nationwide?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try this: You have more crime. You have more fear. You have more police with weapons. You have more guns on the street. You have more not-so-justified shootings. You have more police trying to justify the not-so-justified shootings.
Again. Consequences, not conspiracy. Think it through instead of leaping to the most fantastic possible scenario.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you being a literal guy made you infer a wildly improbable scenario from Bla...er...Elison's statement rather than just taking it at face value?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'd rather point to a statement that is literally wacky and ask "Did you mean what this -says-?" vs "I'm sure you meant...something that makes sense but isn't what you said. "
To me that's presumptuous.
All I did was ASK...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or it is possible the phrase refers to periodic local conspiracies, to protect an officer after a given shooting. The 'blue wall' business rather than some odd to say the least interstate conspiracy involving tens of thousands of police. Which, you know, happens. Given an institution that deals in dangerous situations such as policing it would be stranger if it *didnt* happen.
So, yes, you jumped to the most extreme and wildly improbable interpretation of his statement and 'asked' him about it in ways that were clearly not just questions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get what you all are now speaking of...assuming Bla...Ellison agrees.
However do you expect me to suddenly stop being literal...or simply let go without comment things that people say that strike me as wrong/needing further explanation...on an internet discussion board?
For the record, though, no one took issue with being literal or with the idea of asking questions. In this case, actually being literal would involve reading what Elison said and realizing it offered several possible meanings, and then asking questions about them.
You seized on the most extreme and absurd meaning, and asked questions about it in a way that was as much making statements as asking a question. Not unlike 'what was your mos? Intel?' That's not just a question, it's also a clear criticism and challenge.
*shrug* Write off that analysis if you like, but I suspect not many would read what was written and see mere literalness and asking of questions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I get what you all are now speaking of...assuming Bla...Ellison agrees.
However do you expect me to suddenly stop being literal...or simply let go without comment things that people say that strike me as wrong/needing further explanation...on an internet discussion board?
Me?
Really?
Except you're not being literal at all here. Let's look at how you commented on this thing you wanted further explanation of:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A conspiracy dude? Lots of them? A systematic nation wide epidemic of police conspiracy? Really?
Blayne never once said there was a conspiracy (even though you *insisted* he did, twice), nor did he say pretty much anything else. You pretty much concocted that entire statement yourself, and then once you were told it's obviously not what he meant, you insisted you were just being literal.
Your original question is a little condescending (if I was confused about what he meant (a frequent occurrence) I would have said "are you saying this and that?") but what's interesting is that now that you've been set straight, rather than just dropping it with a "oh, ok, got it! " you're being weirdly defensive and insisting that it's because you're just so dang literal minded. I can't really think how being literal minded would make you infer such a thing.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damnit Dogbreath we almost had a meme going about Me... I...? >:[
Rakeesh and kmbboots both are correct about the argument I was trying to make, there's a cultural trend building off of those incidences.
As an example, many people in the wake of a recent police shooting that took place outside of a dépanneur were completely convinced (I think it was quickly refuted) based off of some early tweets that officers at the scene swooped in to quickly plant evidence on the still-on-the-ground and injured youth. Why? Because of previous incidences where this did happen; or based off of general sentiment when the police routinely circle-the-wagons and protect officers who abused their authority or broke the law in pursuit of their duties; to get off basically with no consequence.
Then you get political, the FBI/CIA routinely attempt to infiltrate "radical" groups and then work ceaselessly to entrap the group into planning and carrying out terrorist acts, often these provocateurs are the ones who get turned in by the group. You see this during large protests where the police will send in plain clothed police officers to try to incite a riot so the police can swoop in and be justified to escalate.
This is on top of already "legal" tactics like "kettling", where they use phalanx like ranks of riot gear equipped officers and barriers to either divert (at best) the protest to trapping them entirely without access to food, water, or bathrooms for an indefinite amount of time. Many countries including the United States have embraced police state tactics when it comes to 'handling' peaceful protests.
The result of this is that protests unless very well disciplined will turn partially violent because of the police and their tactics, which justifies escalated violence which provokes further violence from protesters, repeat.
All of this is compounded by the police being given army/military surplus without adequate training plus an out of control "siege mentality" where police are convinced they are an occupying force in a foreign country and increasingly do not view the people they are ostensibly supposed to Serve and Protect as fellow citizens.
Somewhat related to this is a notion I had was that the US State Sec and government in general has created and empowered their own enemies. If you look for instance at the NSA domestic spying program and the allegations that come to light, up to and including the NSA wanting to put a backdoor into people's app's and services without consent; has created a huge demand for a solution by normal innocent people who nevertheless find such power concerning.
So encyption schemes/apps, TOR, VPN networks, secure browsing, and ISP's deciding to protect their customers privacy as a means of improving service... All of this ends up enticing the private sector to provide all of this, robustly, at a convenient price point for consumers... But this Also includes the terrorists the NSA wanted to infiltrate in the first place.
By casting such a large net either out of malice or negligence, by being so incompetent and opaque, the US government has effectively empowered their enemies and harmed their interests then if they had done the same at a far more subtle pace and with considerably more oversight and accountability.
You reap what you sow.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure my questions were loaded...and when are your guys' not?
I fully admit to being a pot...but come on kettle bros, let's be honest with ourselves about Elison's posts..he equates high risk warrants (legally issued by a judge) to indiscriminately mowing down protesters...then makes a sweeping accusation that nationwide our police force are preying on innocent people and -covering- it up...on such a large scale as to cause escalating violence.
And for the record (in my book) police planting evidence to cover up the crime of accidentally killing innocent victims a conspiracy . He made up the scenario...not I.
I never insisted he was saying it was only one giant conspiracy...
No matter how you dress it up I disagree that it is happening on any kind of systematic basis. Are there dirty cops? Yes. Always.
Are dirty cops a threat to America? Not a bit.
Boot's ideas were plausible, both in being possible & in doing good. What is the solution to the dirty cop epidemic?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Sure my questions were loaded...and when are your guys' not?
Most of the time? I like how this is quickly devolving into a me-vs-them deal, as if we're some group instead of individuals just like you.
Look, if you want to start a pissing contest with Elison then that's fine, but if you continue to misinterpret what he's saying (and I think, seeing as everyone except you was able to understand him, he's not being that vague) and then refuse to accept the truth when you're corrected, then you're not arguing in good faith.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only one pissing here is you...pissing me off. I missed Elison's post as I didn't refresh before posting...
What in the world makes you apparently believe you SHOULD be attempting to correct people about what someone else is thinking? Or that they should accept it?
I accept (and asked for specifically) Elison's explanation of what he meant.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The only one pissing here is you...pissing me off.
lol
quote:What in the world makes you apparently believe you SHOULD be attempting to correct people about what someone else is thinking?
Not what he thought, what he said.
quote:Or that they should accept it?
Because it's a reasonable and civil thing to do? Like, if several people tell you that you really, really misunderstood someone else, generally the proper response to realize they're trying to help you and acknowledge your mistake gracefully.
quote:I accept (and asked for specifically) Elison's explanation of what he meant.
Yes, and Elison's explanation happens to be "Rakeesh and kmbboots both are correct." Beyond that, the forum doesn't belong to you. Getting angry that other people happen to respond to and/or comment on question you post in a public forum isn't very polite.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
I'm actually trying to figure out if he's referring to some past incident or what. There have been a few times when I've regrettably lost my temper posting here, but none is recent memory other than the France discussion.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
I'm -not- the one claiming moral superiority.
And honestly...if YOU really wanted ME to improve you would stay as far away from the discussion as possible as you know you have almost no trust lost between us and let the cooler heads speak instead if popping up to stir up shit.
But then again we both already know your judgement when it comes to me is...shall we say...questionable. I, for one, would not expect my own advice to be at home in your ear.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
I'm actually trying to figure out if he's referring to some past incident or what. There have been a few times when I've regrettably lost my temper posting here, but none is recent memory other than the France discussion.
To be clear...you have been quite discourtious in the past, and yet someone able to deliver such a curt rebuff as "was yours couchpotatoe" would later worry about what was polite...for me...for the whole forum.
If you really want sufficient high ground to be the forum politeness police than you better start being a hell of a lot more polite.
You don't get to get down and dirty with the dogs in the pit and then whine about what's polite.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your question 'what was your mos, Intel?' Was both criticism and insult in the context. Given his actual experience at the way you attempted to dismiss it*, a reply of couch potato was frigging mild.
Not unlike they 'hey I was just asking a question!' Those weren't just questions and since you're operating on the 'who likes who' grading curve for how you interpret things, you should know that when I stick up for Elison's words, it's not going to be because I think his politics are just so rad.
*i admit the brazenness of your 'questiok' about speciality is still impressive. Someone from the military speaks from a military perspective with machine guns and not only do you dismiss it outright ( initially without even qualification), you go on to imply that he's falsely claiming expertise!
I don't subscribe to the idea that combat veterans must never be questioned, but even so I can see how that would 'mildly irritate' many and is in fact a deeply rude and presumptuous attack. But now we're back to the stonewolf special 'someone is being mean to me!' 'rebuttal'.
Dude, you never even said 'ah geeze, my bad man' about that intel crack. You're quite willing to 'ask questions' and God knows you won't be shy about whining when you think someone is being mean, but say something that turns out to be profoundly stupid and insulting and 'fair enough'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with being questioned - i.e, there are probably many, many non-veteran gun enthusiasts out there with more knowledge of of machine guns than I. Nor was I an 0331 (Machine Gunner), and so I'm hardly a SME in the field. I don't talk much about things I've done in the Marines nor do I try and use that as leverage to win arguments.
I did make a light hearted comment attempting to gently highlight the irony of someone who's never served in the military, let alone had an MOS, condescendingly dismissing the experience of someone with 3 deployments and 5 years experience based on their MOS. Apparently that makes me the asshole in this situation. Oh well.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your question 'what was your mos, Intel?' Was both criticism and insult in the context. Given his actual experience at the way you attempted to dismiss it*, a reply of couch potato was frigging mild.
Not unlike they 'hey I was just asking a question!' Those weren't just questions and since you're operating on the 'who likes who' grading curve for how you interpret things, you should know that when I stick up for Elison's words, it's not going to be because I think his politics are just so rad.
*i admit the brazenness of your 'questiok' about speciality is still impressive. Someone from the military speaks from a military perspective with machine guns and not only do you dismiss it outright ( initially without even qualification), you go on to imply that he's falsely claiming expertise!
I don't subscribe to the idea that combat veterans must never be questioned, but even so I can see how that would 'mildly irritate' many and is in fact a deeply rude and presumptuous attack. But now we're back to the stonewolf special 'someone is being mean to me!' 'rebuttal'.
Dude, you never even said 'ah geeze, my bad man' about that intel crack. You're quite willing to 'ask questions' and God knows you won't be shy about whining when you think someone is being mean, but say something that turns out to be profoundly stupid and insulting and 'fair enough'.
And I'm sure you are a fluffy teady bear but hey, we all have issues.
You know some times the by play is enjoyable, to be challenged to have your words and ideas withstand public scrutiny. But honestly I tire of the constant bickering. Perhaps that is why I stayed away for so long. I certainly waded into the thick of it with gusto, and yet finding my feet on paths I've tread before I think perhaps I'll try something else.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth I do apologize for the clearly outrageous comment. I have nothing but respect for those who served. I'm a bit of a miliphile, and always regret that my life didn't include that experience.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rock-Hound- you're kinda being slightly obnoxious over what was a misunderstanding. Like your kinda making it really personal when I don't think they or anyone else in this thread have any intention of being rude to you; but they do what you to address their concerns without turning it into this, thing? They are very polite and patient people, please just let it go and focus on the discussion, I've had a lot of experience to know that sometimes you just gotta assume you, in the words of Sun Tzu, said something in such a way to be misunderstood; and should repeat yourself and be clearer while also seeking understanding of their words and intent.
This is an internet forum, tone is not easily derived. (It's one of those stupid looking indefinate integral functions).
Edit: Didn't see your latest post. So you did that at least
#MarineChat: Dogbreath what had happened with me was while on teamspeak and reading up on news regarding the F-35 I remarked that the Marine Corps must be "the dumb pug dog of the US military" and they "were the reason the United States military and airforce cannot have nice things."
A dude I know got super offended about it because "He has family in the marines and has the utmost respect for them." granted he also accepted as abolute truth the notion that Obama is weak on national security because 'the US Navy is smaller than its bean since WWI' as something that makes logical sense. He went on to say that "If I said that down here I would be beaten to death" and other internet tough guy things.
I feel that if he doesn't actually go in and study the issue and just assumes that because I'm a LIEberal Canadian whose opinion can be dismissed then he's really being more disrespectful than I am since at least while I am speaking facetiously its at least based on some demonstrable truth.
Namely that Marine requirements for the F-35B (Whichever one has the VTOL requirements) is what single handedly caused the most delays, cost overruns and damage to the F-35 program. Further elaborated on a recently released report about the F-35's master testing program schedule.
And all because they want to be able to replay GUADACANAL the next time they gotta storm an opposed beach or something.
In full disclosure of course I don't seriously believe the US Military should dissolve the marines or something, as I understand it the Army version of what a marine brigade is lacks some things to do the effective marine mission and having a force capable of expeditionary overseas rapid deployment which has its own organic naval, artillery, air, and armour assets is more or less going to resemble the USMC so you might as well.
Its just that whelp. Urah!
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But honestly I tire of the constant bickering. Perhaps that is why I stayed away for so long. I certainly waded into the thick of it with gusto, and yet finding my feet on paths I've tread before I think perhaps I'll try something else.
Before you go, I encourage you to look at all the other threads you haven't posted in on the first page of this forum. Many of them involve subjects that people disagree about quite strongly, but somehow they manage to do so in a civil and polite manner without 'bickering.' Then I would recommend taking a serious look at the way you post and the way you present yourself here and ask if you might just possibly be the cause of the bickering.
Also, I would strongly recommend evaluating your belief that anyone here really dislikes you, or that you have enemies. I've been posting here for 6 years and have at various points strongly disagreed with every single person on this forum, but I can't think of anyone I've made an enemy of. I did have an Arch Nemesis, but sadly she no longer posts here.
quote: For what it's worth I do apologize for the clearly outrageous comment. I have nothing but respect for those who served. I'm a bit of a miliphile, and always regret that my life didn't include that experience.
It's fine, I wasn't particularly offended by it. If you're still interested in serving you could check out the National Guard. My brother-in-law is in the Air Guard and he really enjoys it - you basically drill one weekend a month and get paid a decent amount for it. There are guys in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who are part of his unit and really enjoy the experience.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going. I'm just not going to engage in bickering.
Rakeesh and I have had multiple episodes which required mod involvement, and while I don't consider him my enemy per say, he really should kno better than to hop in and try to "help". Really. He should.
As to reserves, my life is currently incompatible with not being available one weekend a month and one week per year. I am the primary (read only) caregiver for my bedridden wife and four and five year old children.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
28 is the cut off for the Marines, but you can get into the Army up until you're 35 and the Air Force is 39.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rakeesh and I have had multiple episodes which required mod involvement, and while I don't consider him my enemy per say, he really should kno better than to hop in and try to "help". Really. He should
quote:eing literal...or simply let go without comment things that people say that strike me as wrong/needing further explanation...on an internet discussion board
Something something palpable irony. Always remember to lecture people for failing to adhere to your double standards.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, I'm interested (eager, really) to see how the slowly deescalating War on Drugs will impact policing in the United States as time goes on.
The idealist in me is thrilled to wonder where that time, effort, and money will go if not thrown down a hole of drug busts and investigations. The cynic in me is sure waste and inefficiency will find a way. The idealist in me replies that even so, there is *so much* spent in so many ways on the War on Drugs that almost anything would be an improvement.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing, its illegal in something like 12 states to film a police officer; so not only do they abuse their power, but in an alliance with "tough on crime" politicians are making it harder to hold them accountable.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
" you're being weirdly defensive and insisting that it's because you're just so dang literal minded. I can't really think how being literal minded would make you infer such a thing.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
