g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 However, you're the one that can't even take the "all cops are good" blinders off for half a second to see the reality before your eyes. Now, why am I not surprised you'd make assertions with no evidence to back them up? Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 There you go again: absolute judgement without irrefutable evidence. Cops are guilty until proven innocent, protesters are innocent until proven guilty. Nice double standard; the G20 "special powers" red herring did nothing to disguise it. [+] Hmmmm.... Innocent until proven guilty... is that like freedom of peaceful assembly or the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure or even the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Saipan Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 You sir, are a disgusting traitor to your fellow citizen. You are exactly the type of person who would be supporting Mbarak in Egypt or Ghadaffi in Libya. When you're losing debate try some name calling Btw, you're confusing me with some Liberal. http://www.freealberta.com/castro.jpg http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/60CAC0B6-3A43-4C3F-A0CE-964BC2CAFFD4/U1786655.jpg Quote
Saipan Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Hmmmm.... Innocent until proven guilty... is that like freedom of peaceful assembly or the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure or even the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned? Exactly. Like Liberal mass confiscation of property. Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Hmmmm.... Innocent until proven guilty... is that like freedom of peaceful assembly or the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure or even the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned? This is my way of clicking "like" Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Hmmmm.... Innocent until proven guilty... is that like freedom of peaceful assembly or the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure or even the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned? Does that have anything to do with the video that was posted as "proof" that police incite violence? Quote
GostHacked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Does that have anything to do with the video that was posted as "proof" that police incite violence? You are either willingly being an idiot, or you really are blind. Or maybe you have family in the police forces and want to defend them. Not all cops are bad. There are some good ones. But it is always the case where a few asshats ruin it for the rest of them. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) You are either willingly being an idiot, or you really are blind. Or maybe you have family in the police forces and want to defend them.Not all cops are bad. There are some good ones. But it is always the case where a few asshats ruin it for the rest of them. So, the answer to my earlier question is: no. Which makes me wonder, what was the real purpose of posting the video? There may well be bad cops, just as there are bad protesters, but the clip did nothing to illustrate the existence of either. [+] Edited March 2, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
GostHacked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 So, the answer to my earlier question is: no. [sp] What was the question? Or do you know what the question was? Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) What was the question? The one you indirectly responded to. [c/e] Edited March 2, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
myata Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Posted March 2, 2011 Not all cops are bad. There are some good ones. But it is always the case where a few asshats ruin it for the rest of them. Including, impotantly, the "asshats" who gave the order, I hope we're clear on that? The thingx is way too big to get routinely written off on a "bad apple " as many are clearly planning to. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
GostHacked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Including, impotantly, the "asshats" who gave the order, I hope we're clear on that? The thingx is way too big to get routinely written off on a "bad apple " as many are clearly planning to. Oh I know. The failure here came from the top. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 The one you indirectly responded to. [c/e] Sorry? Still not following. See how that works? Quote
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Now, why am I not surprised you'd make assertions with no evidence to back them up? I'm pretty sure no evidence will be good enough for you. You have video of the demonstration and an admission from the provincial police. Nope. Never happened though. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 See how that works? Apparently you don't. It's not too hard; give it another go. Start here and follow the thread; responses always follow one another. Good luck! Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) I'm pretty sure no evidence will be good enough for you. You have video of the demonstration and an admission from the provincial police. Nope. Never happened though. Evidence of cops trying to incite violence would certainly do. All that's been presented here as such proof is a video of some people accusing three men in masks (one with what's apparently a rock) of being police and then a second video, part of which includes a letter from the Sûreté du Québec that admits the three men in masks were police officers. The fact that I've discussed the people in the first video, what I see them doing, the alledged rock, what I don't see them doing, and them being undercover police, would indicate clearly to anyone paying attention that I didn't say, nor even indicated, that the demonstration or the admission never happened (really, where do you people come up with this stuff?). I've just said, over and over, that the videos aren't proof that police deliberately try to draw crowds into violent conflict because, well, they show no such thing. Find a video of someone who's known to be an undercover on-duty officer throwing the first rock, and then we can talk. [+] Edited March 2, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Exactly. Like Liberal mass confiscation of property. What? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Saipan Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 What? Liberal mass confiscation of property. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Evidence of cops trying to incite violence would certainly do. All that's been presented here as such proof is a video of some people accusing three men in masks (one with what's apparently a rock) of being police and then a second video, part of which includes a letter from the Sûreté du Québec that admits the three men in masks were police officers. The fact that I've discussed the people in the first video, what I see them doing, the alledged rock, what I don't see them doing, and them being undercover police, would indicate clearly to anyone paying attention that I didn't say, nor even indicated, that the demonstration or the admission never happened (really, where do you people come up with this stuff?). I've just said, over and over, that the videos aren't proof that police deliberately try to draw crowds into violent conflict because, well, they show no such thing. Find a video of someone who's known to be an undercover on-duty officer throwing the first rock, and then we can talk. [+] The videos are proof, that is how it was found out they were cops. They had no chance to incite violence in Montebello because as soon as they entered the scene the protesters called them out. But the fact is they were there undercover, looking like black bloc provocateurs is evidence enough which clearly showed their intentions. There is no way you can honestly defend the cops behavior for the incident in Montebello or the G20. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Liberal mass confiscation of property. Dog houses made of pancakes! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Oleg Bach Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 A POLICE STATE - exists when certain individuals or group of the same minded...get so damned rich and powerful..that money is no longer an issue..but domination of the citizenry and that power pleasure surge is what they only enjoy. Behind every society governend under a police force..there is a person probably snorting coke and having sex with under age girls...All tyrants were spoiled brats as kids...all they are now is an enlarged version of that brat...and those old brats...love to own their own banks...have their own standing army (police)......take the G 20 summit....the brats said...Lets show the young idealists who is boss...take that WHACK goes the trudgeon! Quote
Saipan Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Dog houses made of pancakes! Maybe you can explain why some legally bought and registered handguns are scheduled for confiscation soon as the owner dies. Why can't the heirs apply for proper licence and keep them? I see no cars being confiscated because the trunk is too short or whatever other excuse. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 They had no chance to incite violence in Montebello because as soon as they entered the scene the protesters called them out. But the fact is they were there undercover, looking like black bloc provocateurs is evidence enough which clearly showed their intentions. Speculation. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe you can explain why some legally bought and registered handguns are scheduled for confiscation soon as the owner dies. Why can't the heirs apply for proper licence and keep them? I see no cars being confiscated because the trunk is too short or whatever other excuse. I have absolutely no idea, and nor do I care. I suppose the answer to that is to apply and transfer before the owner dies. In the grand scheme of things that the vast majority of us care about... that issue ranks a 0. Now, can we drop this and get back to the debate on topic? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe you can explain why some legally bought and registered handguns are scheduled for confiscation soon as the owner dies. Why can't the heirs apply for proper licence and keep them? Good lord. What is it with you and guns? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.