Police Officers

[Japan]

what when the fuck did i say that i hate nmh

[purist]

Hey, what were you thinking
When they were starting the show
Yeah, I was there
But I didn't care at all
I was trying to find you
When you got lost in the crowd
Because I'm drunk all the time
I like your helium voice

DEEP

[Japan]

come at me bro

[purist]

least my top 10 isn't full of 10th grade suburban white girl bands

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Reading comprehension fail. I believe your original statement was an opinion.
You can try to twist my words any way you want but you basically likened liberals to anarchists which is fucking retarded.

Won't even bother quoting the rest of your BS, there's just no point.

Regardless of what my political affiliation is, and you are still wrong, you are a completely polarized headcase who is just making himself look a fool. Keep up the good fight.

Your post #78 quotes me as saying:
"The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated."
and then you respond to that quote with the following 2 sentences:
"Spouting slogans and opinions you say? You just described yourself to a T."

By saying "you JUST described" you make it plain that you mean the immediately previous quote. Which means you think my previous quote is 100% "slogans and opinions". One of the "slogans and opinions" I state is that law and order keeps a society running. Therefore you think it is merely an opinion that law and order keeps a society running.

If you intended those 2 sentences to refer to a different quote of mine, you should have placed it near that quote. If you intended those 2 sentences to refer to every quote of mine you should have chosen your words more carefully. Even then, you are still stating that it is merely my opinion that law and order keeps a society running since the phrase "to a T" means that the fit is perfect; everything I say is either a slogan or an opinion.

+++

No where have I said that liberals are anarchists. This thread is about how some liberals hate the police and do not trust them. If this sounds like anarchism, that is not my fault. You are the one who made the connection between those who believe that and anarchists.

+++

Originally Posted by Bodeanicus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A bigger problem is that authoritarian pussy ass kissers believe that anyone in a position of authority is to be automatically trusted, and said persons are always right, and always act responsibly. I mean, that person wouldn't be in that position if Baby Jeebus hadn't miracled their asses into it, now would they?

Nowhere have I or anyone else said authorities should automatically be trusted. Show me where this has been said. Of course there is a need for oversight. Absolutely. But it is ridiculous to claim (as many in this thread have) that cops as a group are a problem, and strongly imply they have no redeeming features.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To clarify, you stated that:

because side #1 (your side? the "good guys"?, white people?)

support "law and order"

that side #2 (liberals? what do you call them these days... colored folk?) must automatically oppose it.

Is that really the best you could come up with when I brought up factions discrediting each other? This is something that a 5th grader would have come up with as an answer to an essay question.

This is why you aren't even worth dealing with. It is such an ignorant statement that I don't even know where to begin.

Is that all that "side #1" stands for?
Is a conservative that breaks the law automatically a liberal? Because that seems to be what you are trying to define.
Do you live in a cave by chance?

I am not trying to prove liberals are against law and order by saying conservatives are for it. I am assuming it is true that liberals are against law and order, and then looking for the reason behind that fact. Groups defining themselves in opposition to other groups is a long-accepted fact of life. I can assume it is true that liberals oppose law and order because that fact underpins this entire thread.
To quote the OP:
"...dooming them to a life on society's underbelly for exercising control over their bodies." An obvious reference to abortion, a bedrock liberal issue.

"You are the enforcer the Christian majority mafia needs to impose its moral "authority..." Christians forcing their moral view on others is another common liberal meme.

Stickygreenbud:
"Also maybe a sensitivity course for each and every cop." You can't get much more liberal than recommending a faggoty sensitivity course.

"Ya i may get shit for this but hey i don't want some ex-military who's having post traumatic stress disorder or issues with his manhood protecting me or even arresting me." Worried about soldiers coming home and going on a killing spree sounds a lot like memos Obama's appointees in the justice department have sent out. Dick size innuendo is another go-to argument typical of liberals.

Murphy:
"You'll only hear the word "liberals" out of the mouth of a white man." Nonsensical, but hates on white males. No attempt to explain wtf he means when called on it. Obviously liberal.

Bodeanicus:
"So frightened. The big bad black men are coming to fuck your mom. Run now!" Playing the race card when no one on the other side has even brought up race = liberal.


I do not address any other aspects of the liberal/ conservative spectrum because they are not an issue in this debate.



I'll give you guys some hints for the future. Understand what my argument is. Then understand what your argument is. Then choose facts which tend to refute my argument, and facts which bolster your argument. Do not use use facts that are not relevant to my argument, do not use facts that are not relevant to your argument. Weave those facts together in a narrative that leads the reader to think your argument makes more sense than mine. I know this sounds like something you'd have to say to a kindergardner, but you guys need it. Your debate skills are horrible.

[purist]

^ Hey, knuckle-dragging retard, nobody gives a shit about your opinion.

[guineapig]

I love how his world is filled with these 2 types of individuals and nothing else.
You really shouldn't try to lump everyone into these 2 categories of yours because that simply isn't the way the world works.

The Bahujan Samaj Party, Partizan, Komala, Frente Popular Revolucionario, The Hungarian Civic Party, The Kurdistan Islamic Union, Il Foglio, Akbayan, PNTCD, The Singapore Reform Party, Centerpartiet, National Socialists, Büyük Birlik Partisi....

That list probably represents 0.01% of the political parties active in the world today. Something tells me that most people's beliefe systems would not neatly fall into the categories of liberal and conservative that you keep using.

But I will give you an easier example that you can be familiar with:

Your typical catholic is anti-abortion but also against the death penalty. So where would you lump this person in your black and white world?

[guineapig]

And to make things worse this same fictional catholic... (we shall name him Bob), is also pro social welfae but scoffs at gay rights.

Oh the horror!
What of the dichotomy?
What about Bob?

[Henini]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about Bob?

That was a good movie, and bob is very appropriate name for a few of the folks here.

[guineapig]

I'm glad you caught that! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]