Letting people be governed how they choose is a republican ideal. If they want decentralized law enforcement what right does the federal government have to tell them they can't?
Because law will become arbitrarily to the whims of the "community". I have no intention passing through Minneapolis-- but if I did -- I would not want to be forced to wear a burka for the time I was in the city limits for fear of being arrested and then subjected to primitive "law enforcement". You haven't thought this through. Homosexuals will be flying off rooftops. There will be "honor killings" . In short -- total craziness.
This "no police" crap has to stop before it gets started. Because they are talking Sharia law but they are not calling it by name.
So in this place that you don't live and will never visit, you want to decide how these people govern themselves under the auspices of our own constitution?
How many gays do you think are currently being tolerated in the pedophile prophet areas of the city, Karen? They already have John Hopkins doctors slicing off girls' genitals, so I don't think mutilating some gays is beyond their reach.
Despite the feeble protestations of the police who are rendered impotent by the centralized authority of their leftist mayor, sharia law marches on.
Maybe I've thought about this more than you. And let's not virtue signal about how many invisible heartwarming fucks you give about fudge stuffers you've never met. They're just a rhetorical tool for you, Karen.
Well Deadeye, let's put it this way. CANCER SPREADS. But of course, that would require thinking beyond your own little interests of playing Wyatt Earp, wouldn't It? Methinks you watched too many cowboy pichers as a young 'un. So yer gonna have ta wait a spell ta saddle up buckaroo -- -cause I'm a thinkin'
most people in these here parts like the sherrif jess fine.
OK Karen, you wear that crown and suckle those poor ignorant subjects for us. We wouldn't want anyone getting uppity and rustling your jimmies from 1000 miles away.
Hey... maybe that's why they're so hard up on passing FEDERAL "anti-lynching" laws. They still want to be able to punish us at a federal level, when we start self-policing again.
Also, yeah... I don't give a shit if they defund their police. Have at it.
This is a good example. Thanks for bringing it up. I gotta say though, the lines are pretty blurred with the Mexican police as well. Those guys are incredibly corrupt.
I'd say even our own police forces have been horrifically corrupt and constantly slaughter people in their own homes at the wrong address or for unconstitutional reasons.
My main argument is that they should be free to take responsibility for their outcomes of their own governance. They have the right to structure their own law enforcement however they see fit and if it does turn into a shit show then they should should fix it.
I don't like this tendency people have to tinker with the lives of everyone in the world just because we get news from their city. Just because I know about something doesn't give me the justification to Karen around with it until it makes me happy.
What the communists want is for us to say "oh look they're doing things different! Quick give the feds ultra powerful laws to force them to stay in line!" That's exactly the centralized authority the commies love.
Ultimately people aren't free if they aren't allowed to hurt themselves.
You pointed out how you feel, you little tyrant. There was no argument there. Why can't you let people be free to fuck up?
Do you actually think it will hurt Trump when they disband their police and it blows up in their faces? Dont interrupt your enemy when they're fucking the dog.
My apologies. My sense of humor and creativity sometimes gets the better of me. I do realize it is a serious topic.
I am in favor of 2nd amendment rights -- but have met people in my life who were a little too "trigger happy". The thought of There being no police force to keep them in check terrifies me. Can you envision every community with its own "boot hill"? Of course not, once the bodies begin to pile up -- they will confiscate all the guns including those of sane people.
So this is a crossroad of history. I am just amazed that everyone is talking about it but the Republican politicians are doing nothing to stop this from beginning. They should nip it in the bud.
"Nipping it in the bud" would have meant not flooding our country with a hundred million foreigners who vote almost exclusively for socialists.
It would have meant fighting back against the Cruikshank decision, the federal reserve act, the donation of trillions of dollars to Stalins communist regime, taking in millions of German and Polish radical Marxists letting them inftrate our industry, universities, media and government, letting war after war after war take place and go nowhere, bankrupting our nation, our people and our future.
Do you really think anything we do now is preemptive?
That doesn't mean we give up without a fight. I would begin revoking citizenship of every immigrant arrested during the week's rioting as a start. And despite what everyone else believes -- I honestly think that Trump has to do a few things before the election.
Obama allowed the press to spred propaganda. I forget the name of the law he revoked. But Trump should reinstate it and get the press back under control. They print lies because that law is no longer in effect. Without the press covering for/supporting the Democrats every move -- I don't believe we'd have quite so much difficulty. I don't know why Trump
hasn't reinstated this law.
Until the press is under control and until he gets social media platforms to stop censoring conservatives -- there isn't much to be done.
But Trump doesn't do anything about this and I wonder why. It's a few strokes of a pen.
He might after the election but any of those actions would be met with months or years of litigation, court decisions, propaganda and raving about how fascist Trump is controlling the media.
One of Trumps most powerful tools is that people don't trust the media. They lie about him so much that he actually looks like a victim of the media. If he were to take severe actions against them it would ruin those optics and push people toward the side of the MSM.
It wouldn't affect his supporters. They know the media lies. And if they took it to court....well, it would take time to be settled. And the media couldn't report negatively on the case until it was settled because he had signed no propaganda into effect. Win/win.
And the Supreme court would most likely not rule in favor of propaganda.
Who cares at this point, stop trying to save people who dont want to me saved. Those who want a better life will move away.
Disbanding the police is an anarchist ideal.
Letting people be governed how they choose is a republican ideal. If they want decentralized law enforcement what right does the federal government have to tell them they can't?
Because law will become arbitrarily to the whims of the "community". I have no intention passing through Minneapolis-- but if I did -- I would not want to be forced to wear a burka for the time I was in the city limits for fear of being arrested and then subjected to primitive "law enforcement". You haven't thought this through. Homosexuals will be flying off rooftops. There will be "honor killings" . In short -- total craziness.
This "no police" crap has to stop before it gets started. Because they are talking Sharia law but they are not calling it by name.
So in this place that you don't live and will never visit, you want to decide how these people govern themselves under the auspices of our own constitution?
How many gays do you think are currently being tolerated in the pedophile prophet areas of the city, Karen? They already have John Hopkins doctors slicing off girls' genitals, so I don't think mutilating some gays is beyond their reach.
Despite the feeble protestations of the police who are rendered impotent by the centralized authority of their leftist mayor, sharia law marches on.
Maybe I've thought about this more than you. And let's not virtue signal about how many invisible heartwarming fucks you give about fudge stuffers you've never met. They're just a rhetorical tool for you, Karen.
Well Deadeye, let's put it this way. CANCER SPREADS. But of course, that would require thinking beyond your own little interests of playing Wyatt Earp, wouldn't It? Methinks you watched too many cowboy pichers as a young 'un. So yer gonna have ta wait a spell ta saddle up buckaroo -- -cause I'm a thinkin' most people in these here parts like the sherrif jess fine.
OK Karen, you wear that crown and suckle those poor ignorant subjects for us. We wouldn't want anyone getting uppity and rustling your jimmies from 1000 miles away.
Why Deadeye, doan worry none. Ah woan be tellin' no one yer ten gallon hat is compensatin' fer what ya lack.
Murder rate increases.
So?
Because I don't really feel like spending every waking hour of my life being a 'crime fighter'... that's what the police are for.
They're also there to enforce red flag gun laws, rubber stamped no knock raids, 2nd amendment bans and civil asset forfeiture.
What's up with cuckservatives abandoning liberty for convenience?
Hey... maybe that's why they're so hard up on passing FEDERAL "anti-lynching" laws. They still want to be able to punish us at a federal level, when we start self-policing again.
Also, yeah... I don't give a shit if they defund their police. Have at it.
This is a good example. Thanks for bringing it up. I gotta say though, the lines are pretty blurred with the Mexican police as well. Those guys are incredibly corrupt.
I'd say even our own police forces have been horrifically corrupt and constantly slaughter people in their own homes at the wrong address or for unconstitutional reasons.
My main argument is that they should be free to take responsibility for their outcomes of their own governance. They have the right to structure their own law enforcement however they see fit and if it does turn into a shit show then they should should fix it.
I don't like this tendency people have to tinker with the lives of everyone in the world just because we get news from their city. Just because I know about something doesn't give me the justification to Karen around with it until it makes me happy.
What the communists want is for us to say "oh look they're doing things different! Quick give the feds ultra powerful laws to force them to stay in line!" That's exactly the centralized authority the commies love.
Ultimately people aren't free if they aren't allowed to hurt themselves.
You are Fake news, pro-gun never meant anti-cop.
Tell that to the folks in Waco. Oh wait, you can't. Oh well, fuck em.
Now what are you on about. I point out an obvious deficiency in your statement and you change the subject - is this Fredo's alt account?
You pointed out how you feel, you little tyrant. There was no argument there. Why can't you let people be free to fuck up?
Do you actually think it will hurt Trump when they disband their police and it blows up in their faces? Dont interrupt your enemy when they're fucking the dog.
You're drunk,now get off my dog and go home.
Just because I'm drunk doesn't mean your dog isn't sexy.
My apologies. My sense of humor and creativity sometimes gets the better of me. I do realize it is a serious topic.
I am in favor of 2nd amendment rights -- but have met people in my life who were a little too "trigger happy". The thought of There being no police force to keep them in check terrifies me. Can you envision every community with its own "boot hill"? Of course not, once the bodies begin to pile up -- they will confiscate all the guns including those of sane people.
So this is a crossroad of history. I am just amazed that everyone is talking about it but the Republican politicians are doing nothing to stop this from beginning. They should nip it in the bud.
I was apologizing in case you thought my Western routine was a bit much. I get carried away sometimes. LOL!
Ok . We're good then! Lol!
"Nipping it in the bud" would have meant not flooding our country with a hundred million foreigners who vote almost exclusively for socialists.
It would have meant fighting back against the Cruikshank decision, the federal reserve act, the donation of trillions of dollars to Stalins communist regime, taking in millions of German and Polish radical Marxists letting them inftrate our industry, universities, media and government, letting war after war after war take place and go nowhere, bankrupting our nation, our people and our future.
Do you really think anything we do now is preemptive?
That doesn't mean we give up without a fight. I would begin revoking citizenship of every immigrant arrested during the week's rioting as a start. And despite what everyone else believes -- I honestly think that Trump has to do a few things before the election.
Obama allowed the press to spred propaganda. I forget the name of the law he revoked. But Trump should reinstate it and get the press back under control. They print lies because that law is no longer in effect. Without the press covering for/supporting the Democrats every move -- I don't believe we'd have quite so much difficulty. I don't know why Trump hasn't reinstated this law.
Until the press is under control and until he gets social media platforms to stop censoring conservatives -- there isn't much to be done.
But Trump doesn't do anything about this and I wonder why. It's a few strokes of a pen.
He might after the election but any of those actions would be met with months or years of litigation, court decisions, propaganda and raving about how fascist Trump is controlling the media.
One of Trumps most powerful tools is that people don't trust the media. They lie about him so much that he actually looks like a victim of the media. If he were to take severe actions against them it would ruin those optics and push people toward the side of the MSM.
It wouldn't affect his supporters. They know the media lies. And if they took it to court....well, it would take time to be settled. And the media couldn't report negatively on the case until it was settled because he had signed no propaganda into effect. Win/win.
And the Supreme court would most likely not rule in favor of propaganda.
The law just banned the government from dissiminating propaganda through private media sources. It doeant mean they can't lie.
Isn't lying and propaganda the same thing? I can't think of an instance where they wouldn't be mutual.