If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
"Brent P" > wrote in message
news > In article >, ToddPriest2 > wrote: >> She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home.Polluting the area with >> drugs.She was a saint? > > Where was that in the article? Oh that's right, you just accept what the > government says at face value. Compared to you? Yes. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
"Brent P" > wrote in message
news > In article >, Douglas W \"Popeye\" > Frederick wrote: >> "Brent P" > wrote in message >> . .. >>> In article >, ToddPriest2 >>> wrote: >>>> Goes to show that scum comes in all ages. >>> >>> Now one is scum to defend one's self and home against the wrongly >>> directed armed force of the government? History shows us, the worlds >>> most >>> dangerous criminals are the ones in government, the most dangerous >>> organizations being governments. >>> >>> Sad. Once upon a time the government busting down the doors of elderly >>> women who had done nothing to anyone would have been considered wrong. >>> Guess not any more. Now it's just a tragic mistake of the wrong address >>> on a warrant. >> >> Let's make sure the grandkids didn't have a meth lab in the garage >> first- > > Maybe the government could start with your home? Sure. We don't lock doors where I live. If they came to the door, I'd offer coffee. I don't even drink coffee. >>> This story is yet another example of how much we have lost as a people. >>> For what? The vain effort to keep someone from smoking a joint or >>> snorting some cocaine? As if it's the government's business what people >>> put in their bodies of their own free will. > >> Well it is, because all you free will types freely help yourselves to >> my >> TV so you can (semi) privately top off, or then you beat your chick until >> she puts for cash out so you can afford to be (semi) privately stoned. > > I see that sensible debate is beyond your mental capabilities. Compared to a Stoner? That's pretty rich. But it's a cop-out. You want an excuse to be absolved from the big picture you (and -I-, as a consumer of alcohol) are a part of, and you want to avoid -all- responsibilities for your actions. Funny, that's one of the things "The Man" says that your "totally harmless" dope smoking does to you, and here you are to example it perfectly. >> The fact is, if you people could handle your joneses like adults, >> little >> old ladies wouldn't get shot by SWAT teams. > > Yep, it appears you want to insult me personally instead of debate. Oh, no. I'm perfectly capable of doing both. But what you're doing is bristling at an accurate description. I notice you couldn't wait one post to respond with insults, and no point or context, so I guess we see who can carry the debate. >> Who's more at fault, them or you? > > Here you go, you have to paint me as a drug user because your low > intellect doesn't allow anything of greater substance. Thanks for the excellent ad-hom example. And methinks thou doth protest too much. >> Personally, I say legalize- spend the enforcement money on the border, >> or >> something worthwhile. > > The war on drugs, the prohibition of drugs has cost us a great deal of > the bill of rights. I value the Bill of Rights. I don't care if my > neighbor smokes a joint or does LSD in his own home. It's not my concern > how he lives his life or destroys his body. Both are his to ruin. See above about avoiding big picture responsibility. >> But I don't want any government money going to your support or rehab. >> You made your choice to be privately free- now you pay for it. > > Here you go again displaying your stupidity. Hint: My view that people > should be free to consume whatever substances they choose has nothing to > do with my personal choices. Suuuuuuuure, Cheech. >The Bill of Rights is more important than > stopping some crack head from getting a high. But hey, you police state > types like using the excuse of saving the crackhead to make it so you can > bust down doors. Not me. I think dopers in prison is a waste of time and money, totally. I think addiction is a sickness. I think the war on drugs is a on-running mistake, and that personal choice is the answer. I'm just not willing to pay for your personal mistake. And if me making some logical conclusions from your positioning is "showing my stupidity", you must be an imbecile. The reason I don't worry about cops coming to my house is because I have nothing to hide. As far as being a "police state type", I handle my own problems. Given the choice, right after I legalized drugs, I'd cut police powers and jurisdiction considerably, and you, my whiny friend, would be on your own. See, what I -am-, is a "survivalist" type, or something close to it, and you are a "sheeple". www.finaldefensivefire.com |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" > wrote in message ... > www.finaldefensivefire.com Not working yet, try this one: -- Popeye Not if, but -when- I die, half the people around here will party because they're my friends, and they know I would demand that. The other half will party as well, glad to be rid of me, and I'll see them in hell. www.finalprotectivefire.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
Top wrote:
> If you deal drugs that is not far from murder. You know the effect, > what the difference between dealing drugs and poisining someone? Why is dealing drugs like murder? Most of the criminal problems associated with drug dealing are due to it's illegal status. The most popular drug in the country is alcohol. It is responsible for more violence, more crime, more accidents, more violence, more health, social, work, financial and family problems that all illegal drugs combined. A Gestapo style raid on the residence of an old lady for a little bit of pot? Get real. It is time to get rid of the no knock search warrants except in the most serious cases. They should require a thorough investigation of the owner or lessee of the property. Too many innocent people have died as a result of no knock search warrants. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
"P.Roehling" wrote:
> > "ToddPriest2" > wrote > > > She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home. Polluting the area with > > drugs. > > And exactly where's your proof of that? Has there already been a trial? No? > Then you're just spouting bull****. He has the word of the police chief who is speaking out on behalf of his drug squad officers. Bear in mind that there is not a branch of law enforcement with a greater record of scandal than drug squads. There have been many documented cases of illegal procedures, bribery, theft, planting evidence, and even drug dealing. > > She was a saint? > > Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her dead > for defending her own home. That raises another issue.... gun control. There have been too many cases of people using firearms for self defence who are not capable of shooting safely or to even distinguish real threats. No knock searches should never be carried out by plainclothes officers, especially in the drug business where big profits make it a violent business and rip offs and home invasions and part of the business. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
Brent P wrote:
>Ever buy a chemical from someone that would kill or harm you if you >ingested it? Of course you have. Have you ever bought a hamburger or >other food that is considered not to be good for you? Most likely you >have. > >Should the government make all your choices for you? Protect you from say >sniffing glue, inhaling paint fumes? Enjoying a nice juicy burger? > >Where's the line? Self destructive behavior takes many forms. Asking the >government to stop it means the end of our freedom, our liberty. Wow. Somebody who actually gets it. Perhaps there is yet hope. -- ================================================== ====================== Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make | two, one and one make one." mrkesti at hotmail dot com | - The Who, Bargain |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
P.Roehling wrote:
> "ToddPriest2" > wrote > > >>She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home. Polluting the area with >>drugs. > > > And exactly where's your proof of that? Has there already been a trial? No? > Then you're just spouting bull****. > > >>She was a saint? > > > Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her dead > for defending her own home. You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you? -- L'Chaim Miriam In the beginning the Word already was. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
"Miriam Cohen" > wrote in message ... > P.Roehling wrote: >> "ToddPriest2" > wrote >> >> >>>She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home. Polluting the area with >>>drugs. >> >> >> And exactly where's your proof of that? Has there already been a trial? >> No? Then you're just spouting bull****. >> >> >>>She was a saint? >> >> >> Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her dead >> for defending her own home. > > You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you? After they broke down her door and entered her home at 1:00AM. Under those circumstances, I would have shot them too, hopefully more accurately (headshots...the way to show that you really care). |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
In article >, Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message > news >> In article >, ToddPriest2 >> wrote: >>> She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home.Polluting the area with >>> drugs.She was a saint? >> >> Where was that in the article? Oh that's right, you just accept what the >> government says at face value. > > Compared to you? > > Yes. So when they write you bogus tickets, when they harrass you for money, when they bust down your door, it will because you deserved it. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL
"P.Roehling" > wrote in
: > > "Brent P" > wrote > >> Here you go again displaying your stupidity. Hint: My view that >> people should be free to consume whatever substances they choose has >> nothing to do with my personal choices. The Bill of Rights is more >> important than stopping some crack head from getting a high. But hey, >> you police state types like using the excuse of saving the crackhead >> to make it so you can bust down doors. > > Pretty much the same mind-set that saw us busting down Iraq's doors to > "save" them from Saddam. > > > Saddam was not only a threat to other ME countries,he was a threat to the US. He supported terrorism,gave shelter to terrorists,had terrorist training camps.He also had started TWO wars in the ME;Iran and Kuwait. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"My daughter had a right to be on the road that night," Innis said. "He didn't." | [email protected] | Driving | 465 | August 9th 06 07:27 AM |
Research claims women are idiots about cars | laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE | Driving | 2 | March 9th 06 05:26 PM |