Journal pudge's Journal: Leftwing Socialists in Portland are Racist 22
I was visiting some friends in Portland, Oregon, and I was told about an incident at the local Red and Black Cafe, in which a police officer was asked to leave because their customers (sorry, "collective members") do not feel safe around police.
Said the co-owner (which I assume, as this IWW closed shop is "worker-owned" and "collectively managed," is simply one of the baristas) said, "If there's a police officer there, I wouldn't feel safe in that situation. I would feel worried that the officer might Tase the person or potentially shoot them for having a mental health issue."
I suggest they add "wearing a law enforcement uniform non-ironically" to their list of prohibited behviors
Regardless, what's clear is that they agree with Rand Paul that the right of private discrimination, while often an abomination, is protected by our Constitution. And because that view is "inherently racist," well
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Racist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Racist against police? Police are a race apart? Perhaps a superior race....
Police are dangerous. They have entirely too many powers. They disarm citizens at will. They can storm properties without warrants. Disobedience of any sort may earn the disobedient torture. I will admit I am nervous around TSA, police, and any other government officials. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Remember that? Civil servants have become civil masters in this post 9/11 nation. Liberals weren't the ones who did this either.
The citizenry of the republic is perfectly capable of defending itself. Police are not required under most circumstances. Any longer, police enforce rules to enforce their own power.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Racist against police? Police are a race apart?
Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote?
I noted the fact that the proprietors of this cafe are in favor of the right to discriminate against members of the public who may come to their establishment. I also noted the fact that many people call being in favor of that right "inherently racist."
It's quite simple, and yes, it has nothing to do with race ... but since I am told that the right to discriminate is "inherently racist," well, that's the way it is, I guess.
Police are dangerous.
So are non-police. I can be dangerous, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Ruby Ridge.
Re: (Score:2)
Ruby Ridge.
You say this like it disproves anything I said. It doesn't. Again: non-police could have done what happened at Ruby Ridge.
Re: (Score:2)
non-police could have done what happened at Ruby Ridge.
Let me know when non-police can be protected by sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org] for doing it.
As for your post, you could replace freedom of [dis?]association with guns and racism with murder and the basic concept would still come out true for certain breeds of liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when non-police can be protected by sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org] for doing it.
That's beside the point Stargoat made. He was talking about being afraid of what they could do, the power they have ... not whether they could be protected for using that power. Certainly, their methods of self-defense for the exercise of power are different than most everyone else.
As for your post, you could replace freedom of [dis?]association with guns and racism with murder and the basic concept would still come out true for certain breeds of liberal.
Why do you hate America? ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Local law enforcement would have picked up David Koresh during one of his numerous trips to town rather then trying to serve a warrant on him at his compound. They knew him and the area better than the Feds.
I can't help but wonder if it was really was just not knowing the man or the area well enough. It seems like Janet Reno [who publicly stated she takes full responsibility for it] opted not for the easy way to end the situation, but the most spectacular one.
To send a message? Whatever the case, it should
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I said nervous, not afraid. Afraid implies unwillingness to act; its use also betrays an intellectual dishonesty on Pudge's part.
The police in the United States have over the course of the last 100 years been given essentially unlimited authority with no responsibility. American police can disarm the citizenry at will. American police can demand compliance with outrageous and atrocious orders. American police are allowed to kill or torture at their own whim - likely facing no punishment at all.
Further,
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Afraid implies unwillingness to act
False. You might have intended to imply that, but the word normally carries no such meaning.
its use also betrays an intellectual dishonesty on Pudge's part.
You're an idiot. I have nothing more to say to that claim.
The police in the United States have over the course of the last 100 years been given essentially unlimited authority with no responsibility.
False. Not remotely true.
American police can disarm the citizenry at will.
Yes, but in doing so, they break the law, and are usually held accountable for such crimes.
American police can demand compliance with outrageous and atrocious orders.
Yes, but in doing so, they break the law, and are usually held accountable for such crimes.
American police are allowed to kill or torture at their own whim - likely facing no punishment at all.
You're a liar. They are allowed to do no such thing, and are almost surely to face punishment for doing it.
Further, Pudge's arguments regarding police breaking Constitutional laws are a joke.
Demonstrate it.
Police break Constitutional law all the time and they get away with it. One need only look at ... the Bush administration's power grab after 9/11.
What about it? Make an actua
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, are a moral coward.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You sir, are a moral coward.
I'd ask you to demonstrate it, but I am confident that -- like all of your other idiotic assertions -- you're incapable of doing so.
I do what I always do: I point out when people are full of shit. You can't back up your claims (like the asinine notion that police have "unlimited authority"). I point out that you can't back up your claims by denying your claims, and giving you the oppportunity to provide evidence. You cannot provide evidence, so instead of slinking away or admitting you are wrong, you get
Re: (Score:1)
Civil servants have become civil masters in this post 9/11 nation. Liberals weren't the ones who did this either.
I guess it's a matter of where you choose to stop in how far you look back. You try to blame this on Republicans or neocons. But only 9 years of vision depth is obviously (intentionally?) misleadingly myopic.
I choose to look back several decades (which also may be too myopic -- I invite even broader perspectives). Who grew up hating America and its traditions and institutions, and has been trying
Re: (Score:2)
The vernacular is very confused these days. Republican and Democrat have nothing to do with political philosophy. Its the thoughts of the like minded people within them that terms the identity of the parties. For example, if we take parties as they were form, the Republicans are "anti-slavery" and the Democrats are "pro-slavery". Republicans are pro-centralized government, Democrats are pro-decentralized government. Republicans are for unconstitutional change, while Democrats are for strict constitutional a
Re: (Score:2)
if we take parties as they were form, the Republicans are "anti-slavery" and the Democrats are "pro-slavery". Republicans are pro-centralized government, Democrats are pro-decentralized government. Republicans are for unconstitutional change, while Democrats are for strict constitutional adherence.
False on the latter two counts.
The Republicans were for forcing new states to be either "slave" or "free"
And the Democrats were in favor of using the power of the federal government to capture escaped slaves across state lines and return them to their owners ... which is pro-centralized, AND violative of the constitutional rights of the individual states.
Today, as well as 5 years ago, the Republican party is much different
Not really. It's still a party focused primarily on individual liberty and -- where the federal government has authority -- strong, though limited, federal power.
John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and a bunch of other Republicans fall into the "statist" definition.
Nonsense. McCain and Graham are both far more conservative, and f
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You know McCain that well? Ever hear of McCain-Feinstein Law? Its an absolutely progressive, anti-constitutional, anti-first amendment law. It was his law (bears his name), and it was partially struck down by the supreme court, and rightly so. If this doesn't prove his progressive/statist nature, what will? Does he have to set up gulags or seize farms for state control?
As far as the republican party during the Bush senior years, they ignored the Constitution with Medicare plan D. Sure, the tax cuts
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Yes.
You know McCain that well?
Yes.
Ever hear of McCain-Feinstein Law?
No. Neither have you. You're thinking of McCain-Feingold.
Its an absolutely progressive, anti-constitutional, anti-first amendment law.
No. Only in part.
it was partially struck down by the supreme court, and rightly so
Correct. As I said when it was passed (and so did Bush, before he signed it).
If this doesn't prove his progressive/statist nature, what will?
If supporting one such bill proves someone has a "progressive/statist nature," then every President -- including George Washington, James Madison, and Ronald Reagan -- was a statist.
Does he have to set up gulags or seize farms for state control?
He has to have a history that is significantly leaning more toward statism than not. He doesn't. I asked you for a significant number of examples. You offered one.
Re: (Score:1)
The only thing I question in all that you said surrounds this:
Its between American ideas and European Marxist ideas.
Marxism in general certainly includes spreading its philosophy, but I don't know if I'd call it American to be for the spread of democracy in a similar way. And I happen to find fairly convincing Glenn Beck's argument that the intertwining of economies into a world economy was a Progressive and bad idea.
I believe in what I have a rough feel for as the proper level of sovereignty at each level.
Re: (Score:2)
Globalism isnt bad. Its bad when its done in a Marxist way. A free, global market, is a good thing. Global stability is a good thing. When people have food, shelter, and hope, its a good thing. Intertwining economies through government policy is bad, but it isnt bad when it happens because of free market principles. I don't believe in spreading liberty at the point of the spear, but I believe in containing tyranny with all reasonable means.
What I disagree with Glenn Beck and most Libertarians is the idea th
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Is it? Really? Its more dangerous to live in Los Angeles than it is to do a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan. You should read the LA Times homicide blog from time to time.
Police have no power. They can detain, but they cannot imprison. The judicial system is the only group who can really do anything to you within the frame work of the law. And of course, the judges cannot create laws because they do not have the authority, that lies with the elected politicans. If you dont like the laws the police a
IWW Closed shop (Score:2)
Their business is up and the cop's happy (Score:2)
Pudge,
1) These are anarchists, and as you know, anarchists always do stupid things when they try to form groups.
2) This took place in Portland, Oregon. People there are not entirely sane. An Oregon National Guard soldier recently got into trouble over medical marijuana [oregonlive.com] -- and her chain of command in the Oregon Guard is on her side. It's those damn Regular Army fascists in Washington who want to put her in jail.
3) The Anarchist cafe's business is way up because of the publicity, and Officer Crooker is gettin