Translated to "I can't debate valid points, so I'll just dismiss it as a tangent!!"lowing wrote:
Yeha well, if it makes sense to you so be it.nlsme1 wrote:
"yes because as well all know it is the cops in America, and not the criminals, that is the problem"
Those are two differant statements. And plenty of people do spend their money looking out for what you would consider criminals.
BTW taxpayers pay for cops to be watched. There are cops that don't "help" other cops catch the criminals. Their only job is to watch other cops. So, why not bitch about how stupid it is for the government to take TAXPAYER money to do the same thing you are bitching about someone taking their OWN money to do?
Here is the mind fuck for you: Once ANYBODY commits a crime they are criminal. Cop or not. So they are on the lookout for criminals. They MIGHT help the cops catch one.
I am not getting into internal affairs with you. It has nothing to do with what I said and I will not follow you into your tangent.
So you are saying they gave you a helo that was not tested, and you did the r&d? I thouht you were just a mechanic. I had no clue you replaced the whole damn manufacturer. In any sense, the millitary COULD make it a soldiers job.lowing wrote:
There were no MOS's in the military that had soldiers preform modifications, testing and R&D on systems in the active units. ALL jobs in the military, in the field, had to do with maintaining existing systems. NOT installing new ones. You were not handed a rifle that has not been tested and proven and told to go fight. Well, we did not hand over a gunship to a pilot in Iraq and say, see if this works.eleven bravo wrote:
who is hating? Im just pointing out the hypocrisy. Also, you do realize that the level of maintenance you performed/duties entailed would have been done by a member of the armed forces about 20 years ago.lowing wrote:
You would not believe how many soldiers tried to give us their resumes.. and the fact of the matter is, soldiers and airmen are not trained to do what we were doing. It was not part of their routine maintenance. Can't ever remember a single person that has ever told their employer, no please, I make too much, take this back.
IF a soldier or airmen could have done our job, they would have.
Also, if you are going to actually admit you would take the job as well, then stop with the hating, get some talent, and apply for a job.
Put it to you this way, when I joined the army there were 200 plus MOS's when I was discharged that number changed to 190. A lot of old MOS were phased out because private contractors (folks like you) are hired by the government to perform these tasks. MOS's like cook and laundry specialist and water purification have been slowly phased out and been replace by private contract. So, I would make a wager and say the job you did in iraq would have been performed by a member of the military in another era/conflict.
by the way, my MOS's (I had two) only qualified me to kill people and pick up cigarette butts and fuck with peoples minds. Not much I could use in the civilian sector.
There is no hypocrisy. There was a job that needed to be done, they hired me to do it, why? because I could do it. If you want to berate me for doing it so be it, but if there is any hypocrisy, it is you trying to belittle me for doing it, then telling me you would do it as well.
I was thinking the exact same thing.nlsme1 wrote:
Translated to "I can't debate valid points, so I'll just dismiss it as a tangent!!"lowing wrote:
Yeha well, if it makes sense to you so be it.nlsme1 wrote:
"yes because as well all know it is the cops in America, and not the criminals, that is the problem"
Those are two differant statements. And plenty of people do spend their money looking out for what you would consider criminals.
BTW taxpayers pay for cops to be watched. There are cops that don't "help" other cops catch the criminals. Their only job is to watch other cops. So, why not bitch about how stupid it is for the government to take TAXPAYER money to do the same thing you are bitching about someone taking their OWN money to do?
Here is the mind fuck for you: Once ANYBODY commits a crime they are criminal. Cop or not. So they are on the lookout for criminals. They MIGHT help the cops catch one.
I am not getting into internal affairs with you. It has nothing to do with what I said and I will not follow you into your tangent.
lowing wrote:
I am not getting into internal affairs with you because you just gave me a fat ass beat down
Putting words in peoples mouth again lowing.lowing wrote:
No, protesting against a police force whose members are not breaking the law any where near to the extent that criminals are, is just fucking stupid.ruisleipa wrote:
Protesting against people who are concerned about police breaking the law is just fucking stupid.
There is no indications anywhere that have been produced to suggest there is a greater problem with the police than with the criminal element. Your attentions are turned in the wrong direction.
Is it safe to assume then, since you suspect the police more han you suspect a criminal, that you will call a criminal to your house when you are in trouble instead of the police?
I did not know you could sue someone because you filmed them violating someone elses rights. Time to get my camera out.lowing wrote:
Bottom line, if you want to help your community, help the police. filming their every move hoping to catch them doing something and turning them in, does not do them any good, and it does not do the community any good.ruisleipa wrote:
as usual yuou take it to ridiculous extremes. We KNOW who the cops are, we DON'T know who the criminals are until they commit crimes. There are already lots of people watching out for criminals. There are not many watching the cops or authority. So why the hell shouldn't they watch them?lowing wrote:
Never said there were no bad cops........but to film the cops instend of the criminals suggests they are more worried aboutthe cops than the criminal element.
As for my last sentence. Why? If these peopel are so worried about hte cops MORE than they are the criminal; element, why would they trust a cop to come out and protect them? After all, there are countless cases of police abuse right. I assume they feel the odds are they will get a bad cop showing up..Best not to call them at all then if they feel that way
They're not MORE worried about cops but they are concerned that the new laws give rise to a greater possibility that the cops could commit illegal acts. Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should be concerned that the police might commit illegal acts? Seriously? So you don't think there should be any police departments responsible for ensuring that the police follow the law, since those resources should be put towards catching 'criminals'?
Also you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that SOME COPS ARE CRIMINALS, so how do you suggest they get caught then?
Your ridiculous troll assumptions, one example of which you give above, are why the vast majority of your arguments are absolute nonsense.
Their are worse crimes committed by bad cops than racially profiling an illegal immigrant. They are not concerned about real criminal activity like a cop drug dealing, or a cop run prostitution ring. They want to catch a cop racially profiling. So get over your bullshit about concerned citizens. They are trying to find laws suits for quit money. Period.
Now these people are filming the cops at their house? And people do walk through bussinuss all the time and report osha violations. They are called employees.11 Bravo wrote:
not every place has that.ruisleipa wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_watch11 Bravo wrote:
why doesnt everyone just watch everybody then, ruis?
?
no i mean being able to see peoples computes so they are not looking at child porn. film thru my neighbors windows to make sure they arent doing illegal drugs. walk thru any business to make sure they are following osha policies. etc etc etc
I really should learn to do those neat post trees to keep it all in one post. Sry for that.
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-05-13 11:12:14)
No you are on a tangent when you try to compare internal affairs with some dumb fuck chasing cops around in hopes of busting him. and that translates into.............You are stretching for an argument you can not reach, and I am not going to entertain it.nlsme1 wrote:
Translated to "I can't debate valid points, so I'll just dismiss it as a tangent!!"lowing wrote:
Yeha well, if it makes sense to you so be it.nlsme1 wrote:
"yes because as well all know it is the cops in America, and not the criminals, that is the problem"
Those are two differant statements. And plenty of people do spend their money looking out for what you would consider criminals.
BTW taxpayers pay for cops to be watched. There are cops that don't "help" other cops catch the criminals. Their only job is to watch other cops. So, why not bitch about how stupid it is for the government to take TAXPAYER money to do the same thing you are bitching about someone taking their OWN money to do?
Here is the mind fuck for you: Once ANYBODY commits a crime they are criminal. Cop or not. So they are on the lookout for criminals. They MIGHT help the cops catch one.
I am not getting into internal affairs with you. It has nothing to do with what I said and I will not follow you into your tangent.
Get back with us, when you have an ounce of a clue as to what you are talking about.nlsme1 wrote:
So you are saying they gave you a helo that was not tested, and you did the r&d? I thouht you were just a mechanic. I had no clue you replaced the whole damn manufacturer. In any sense, the millitary COULD make it a soldiers job.lowing wrote:
There were no MOS's in the military that had soldiers preform modifications, testing and R&D on systems in the active units. ALL jobs in the military, in the field, had to do with maintaining existing systems. NOT installing new ones. You were not handed a rifle that has not been tested and proven and told to go fight. Well, we did not hand over a gunship to a pilot in Iraq and say, see if this works.eleven bravo wrote:
who is hating? Im just pointing out the hypocrisy. Also, you do realize that the level of maintenance you performed/duties entailed would have been done by a member of the armed forces about 20 years ago.
Put it to you this way, when I joined the army there were 200 plus MOS's when I was discharged that number changed to 190. A lot of old MOS were phased out because private contractors (folks like you) are hired by the government to perform these tasks. MOS's like cook and laundry specialist and water purification have been slowly phased out and been replace by private contract. So, I would make a wager and say the job you did in iraq would have been performed by a member of the military in another era/conflict.
by the way, my MOS's (I had two) only qualified me to kill people and pick up cigarette butts and fuck with peoples minds. Not much I could use in the civilian sector.
There is no hypocrisy. There was a job that needed to be done, they hired me to do it, why? because I could do it. If you want to berate me for doing it so be it, but if there is any hypocrisy, it is you trying to belittle me for doing it, then telling me you would do it as well.
you're the one stretching or should I say grasping at straws.lowing wrote:
No you are on a tangent when you try to compare internal affairs with some dumb fuck chasing cops around in hopes of busting him. and that translates into.............You are stretching for an argument you can not reach, and I am not going to entertain it.
I love your technique of saying 'oh I'm not going to entertain it' whenever someone posts something showing your argument is dumb...good technique. I might borrow it.
well if you are soooooooooooooo concenred about how terrible the police are, that you feel the need to film them... Then you should be afraid enough NOT to expect them to help your ass when you need help. Call on osmeone you trust to help, someone you are not videotaping, call a criminal.nlsme1 wrote:
Putting words in peoples mouth again lowing.lowing wrote:
No, protesting against a police force whose members are not breaking the law any where near to the extent that criminals are, is just fucking stupid.ruisleipa wrote:
Protesting against people who are concerned about police breaking the law is just fucking stupid.
There is no indications anywhere that have been produced to suggest there is a greater problem with the police than with the criminal element. Your attentions are turned in the wrong direction.
Is it safe to assume then, since you suspect the police more han you suspect a criminal, that you will call a criminal to your house when you are in trouble instead of the police?
The person who is getting "violated" can sue, regardless if he has a case or not. Welcome to America.nlsme1 wrote:
I did not know you could sue someone because you filmed them violating someone elses rights. Time to get my camera out.lowing wrote:
Bottom line, if you want to help your community, help the police. filming their every move hoping to catch them doing something and turning them in, does not do them any good, and it does not do the community any good.ruisleipa wrote:
as usual yuou take it to ridiculous extremes. We KNOW who the cops are, we DON'T know who the criminals are until they commit crimes. There are already lots of people watching out for criminals. There are not many watching the cops or authority. So why the hell shouldn't they watch them?
They're not MORE worried about cops but they are concerned that the new laws give rise to a greater possibility that the cops could commit illegal acts. Are you seriously suggesting that no-one should be concerned that the police might commit illegal acts? Seriously? So you don't think there should be any police departments responsible for ensuring that the police follow the law, since those resources should be put towards catching 'criminals'?
Also you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that SOME COPS ARE CRIMINALS, so how do you suggest they get caught then?
Your ridiculous troll assumptions, one example of which you give above, are why the vast majority of your arguments are absolute nonsense.
Their are worse crimes committed by bad cops than racially profiling an illegal immigrant. They are not concerned about real criminal activity like a cop drug dealing, or a cop run prostitution ring. They want to catch a cop racially profiling. So get over your bullshit about concerned citizens. They are trying to find laws suits for quit money. Period.
Like I said, internal affairs has nothing to do with what Jose and his cousin Sanchez are doing with a video camera. They are running around town looking for people pulled over to video tape. They are not focusing on A cop they are trying to catch ANY cop.....This is not what internal affairs does and it is not the same topic, no matter how hard you want it to be.ruisleipa wrote:
you're the one stretching or should I say grasping at straws.lowing wrote:
No you are on a tangent when you try to compare internal affairs with some dumb fuck chasing cops around in hopes of busting him. and that translates into.............You are stretching for an argument you can not reach, and I am not going to entertain it.
I love your technique of saying 'oh I'm not going to entertain it' whenever someone posts something showing your argument is dumb...good technique. I might borrow it.
I am not stretching for an arguement. Why is it dumb to watch cops even though cops watch cops?lowing wrote:
No you are on a tangent when you try to compare internal affairs with some dumb fuck chasing cops around in hopes of busting him. and that translates into.............You are stretching for an argument you can not reach, and I am not going to entertain it.nlsme1 wrote:
Translated to "I can't debate valid points, so I'll just dismiss it as a tangent!!"lowing wrote:
Yeha well, if it makes sense to you so be it.
I am not getting into internal affairs with you. It has nothing to do with what I said and I will not follow you into your tangent.
Covered this before. My siganture is on a LOT more in the aeronautics industry then yours bub.lowing wrote:
Get back with us, when you have an ounce of a clue as to what you are talking about.nlsme1 wrote:
So you are saying they gave you a helo that was not tested, and you did the r&d? I thouht you were just a mechanic. I had no clue you replaced the whole damn manufacturer. In any sense, the millitary COULD make it a soldiers job.lowing wrote:
There were no MOS's in the military that had soldiers preform modifications, testing and R&D on systems in the active units. ALL jobs in the military, in the field, had to do with maintaining existing systems. NOT installing new ones. You were not handed a rifle that has not been tested and proven and told to go fight. Well, we did not hand over a gunship to a pilot in Iraq and say, see if this works.
There is no hypocrisy. There was a job that needed to be done, they hired me to do it, why? because I could do it. If you want to berate me for doing it so be it, but if there is any hypocrisy, it is you trying to belittle me for doing it, then telling me you would do it as well.
I remember, what is you work, parts department?nlsme1 wrote:
Covered this before. My siganture is on a LOT more in the aeronautics industry then yours bub.lowing wrote:
Get back with us, when you have an ounce of a clue as to what you are talking about.nlsme1 wrote:
So you are saying they gave you a helo that was not tested, and you did the r&d? I thouht you were just a mechanic. I had no clue you replaced the whole damn manufacturer. In any sense, the millitary COULD make it a soldiers job.
I am not concerned at all. I am also not concerned with citizens watching cops.lowing wrote:
well if you are soooooooooooooo concenred about how terrible the police are, that you feel the need to film them... Then you should be afraid enough NOT to expect them to help your ass when you need help. Call on osmeone you trust to help, someone you are not videotaping, call a criminal.nlsme1 wrote:
Putting words in peoples mouth again lowing.lowing wrote:
No, protesting against a police force whose members are not breaking the law any where near to the extent that criminals are, is just fucking stupid.
There is no indications anywhere that have been produced to suggest there is a greater problem with the police than with the criminal element. Your attentions are turned in the wrong direction.
Is it safe to assume then, since you suspect the police more han you suspect a criminal, that you will call a criminal to your house when you are in trouble instead of the police?
Internal affairs investigates accusations of mis-conduct. They do not run around with cam crders trying to bust every cop they see at every turn.nlsme1 wrote:
I am not stretching for an arguement. Why is it dumb to watch cops even though cops watch cops?lowing wrote:
No you are on a tangent when you try to compare internal affairs with some dumb fuck chasing cops around in hopes of busting him. and that translates into.............You are stretching for an argument you can not reach, and I am not going to entertain it.nlsme1 wrote:
Translated to "I can't debate valid points, so I'll just dismiss it as a tangent!!"
THe actions of intenral affairs is not what is being dicussed here.
You stated the only reason THEY were filming was for THEM to get money. You see how you didn't address my point there? And you better damn well beleive they have a case once their rights are infringed upon.lowing wrote:
The person who is getting "violated" can sue, regardless if he has a case or not. Welcome to America.nlsme1 wrote:
I did not know you could sue someone because you filmed them violating someone elses rights. Time to get my camera out.lowing wrote:
Bottom line, if you want to help your community, help the police. filming their every move hoping to catch them doing something and turning them in, does not do them any good, and it does not do the community any good.
Their are worse crimes committed by bad cops than racially profiling an illegal immigrant. They are not concerned about real criminal activity like a cop drug dealing, or a cop run prostitution ring. They want to catch a cop racially profiling. So get over your bullshit about concerned citizens. They are trying to find laws suits for quit money. Period.
I'll take the time to point it out for you. Your arguement for the reason they are doing it is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
Of course not. Maybe cops shouldn't be concerned with helping any of you that support someone who is training a cam corder on them in hopes they fuck up while they try and help.nlsme1 wrote:
I am not concerned at all. I am also not concerned with citizens watching cops.lowing wrote:
well if you are soooooooooooooo concenred about how terrible the police are, that you feel the need to film them... Then you should be afraid enough NOT to expect them to help your ass when you need help. Call on osmeone you trust to help, someone you are not videotaping, call a criminal.nlsme1 wrote:
Putting words in peoples mouth again lowing.
Get back to us when you have a clue what you are talking about. It is EXACTLY what internal affairs does. I know, I was a deputy for 8 yrs.lowing wrote:
Like I said, internal affairs has nothing to do with what Jose and his cousin Sanchez are doing with a video camera. They are running around town looking for people pulled over to video tape. They are not focusing on A cop they are trying to catch ANY cop.....This is not what internal affairs does and it is not the same topic, no matter how hard you want it to be.ruisleipa wrote:
you're the one stretching or should I say grasping at straws.lowing wrote:
No you are on a tangent when you try to compare internal affairs with some dumb fuck chasing cops around in hopes of busting him. and that translates into.............You are stretching for an argument you can not reach, and I am not going to entertain it.
I love your technique of saying 'oh I'm not going to entertain it' whenever someone posts something showing your argument is dumb...good technique. I might borrow it.
It is being done in hopes for civil rights cases to emerge. Civil rights cases equals money.nlsme1 wrote:
You stated the only reason THEY were filming was for THEM to get money. You see how you didn't address my point there? And you better damn well beleive they have a case once their rights are infringed upon.lowing wrote:
The person who is getting "violated" can sue, regardless if he has a case or not. Welcome to America.nlsme1 wrote:
I did not know you could sue someone because you filmed them violating someone elses rights. Time to get my camera out.
I'll take the time to point it out for you. Your arguement for the reason they are doing it is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
It is their job man. I have had to help many people I could not stand. Why? It was MY JOB!lowing wrote:
Of course not. Maybe cops shouldn't be concerned with helping any of you that support someone who is training a cam corder on them in hopes they fuck up while they try and help.nlsme1 wrote:
I am not concerned at all. I am also not concerned with citizens watching cops.lowing wrote:
well if you are soooooooooooooo concenred about how terrible the police are, that you feel the need to film them... Then you should be afraid enough NOT to expect them to help your ass when you need help. Call on osmeone you trust to help, someone you are not videotaping, call a criminal.
so which is it, are you an aeronautical engineer or are you a cop?nlsme1 wrote:
Get back to us when you have a clue what you are talking about. It is EXACTLY what internal affairs does. I know, I was a deputy for 8 yrs.lowing wrote:
Like I said, internal affairs has nothing to do with what Jose and his cousin Sanchez are doing with a video camera. They are running around town looking for people pulled over to video tape. They are not focusing on A cop they are trying to catch ANY cop.....This is not what internal affairs does and it is not the same topic, no matter how hard you want it to be.ruisleipa wrote:
you're the one stretching or should I say grasping at straws.
I love your technique of saying 'oh I'm not going to entertain it' whenever someone posts something showing your argument is dumb...good technique. I might borrow it.
Internal affairs do not fuck with all cops in hopes they fuck up to get it on film for a big fat law suit..
So they are doing it because they want to make sure the person being violated gets some money. Nevermind the fact THEY will never see any money. Hmm, nice neighborly folks there if you ask me. Going out of their way to make sure someone else gets some dough. Way to reach there lowing. Civil rights cases can also CHANGE THE LAW. But thats not why they are taping. NO FUCKING WAY!!lowing wrote:
It is being done in hopes for civil rights cases to emerge. Civil rights cases equals money.nlsme1 wrote:
You stated the only reason THEY were filming was for THEM to get money. You see how you didn't address my point there? And you better damn well beleive they have a case once their rights are infringed upon.lowing wrote:
The person who is getting "violated" can sue, regardless if he has a case or not. Welcome to America.
I'll take the time to point it out for you. Your arguement for the reason they are doing it is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-05-13 15:06:15)
My work is not related directly to aircraft. I have had enough experiance in the matter to know that a mechanic is NOT the one that does R&D. My point is, that even though you say a soldier could not do your job, he could. All it takes is training and the decision. More bang for MY buck. But you don't see me making threads about how pointless it is for the government to take money from me, just to give to you. It is NOT a necessity for a private contracter to get 2 times the amount of money a soldier gets, just because thats the way it is.lowing wrote:
I remember, what is you work, parts department?nlsme1 wrote:
Covered this before. My siganture is on a LOT more in the aeronautics industry then yours bub.lowing wrote:
Get back with us, when you have an ounce of a clue as to what you are talking about.