Here again, once the process starts to unfold, the only thing resisting the process is going to get you is hurt. The police told him that they witnessed him doing something illegal and he was under arrest. His response was "Get your hands off of me", which is going to do nothing other than ensure that many hands are going to be on him.
But it all happens because a nanny state decides that selling single cigarettes on the street is a primary criminal offense that a person is going to be arrested for instead of having it be a civil offense like a speeding ticket punishable only by a fine. If the folks in NY are going to be outraged at something it ought to be the degree to which their city government has gone to make more and more of them criminals in pursuit of more and more money taken from them by tax laws. The reason selling "loosies" is a crime is that it is supposedly done to evade tax laws, which raise revenue for the city by punishing smokers for their unhealthy decisions. The answer to that is to levy a fine, which replaces the revenue lost to the tax avoidance behavior that their obscene tax levy elicits in the first place.
You arrest a man driving a semi full of cigarettes that haven't been taxed for tax evasion, not a man selling one or two of them at a time on the street. New Yorkers should be protesting against city hall, its mayor and its city council, not the police department.
PrintSmith wrote: But it all happens because a nanny state decides that selling single cigarettes on the street is a primary criminal offense that a person is going to be arrested for instead of having it be a civil offense like a speeding ticket punishable only by a fine. If the folks in NY are going to be outraged at something it ought to be the degree to which their city government has gone to make more and more of them criminals in pursuit of more and more money taken from them by tax laws. The reason selling "loosies" is a crime is that it is supposedly done to evade tax laws, which raise revenue for the city by punishing smokers for their unhealthy decisions. The answer to that is to levy a fine, which replaces the revenue lost to the tax avoidance behavior that their obscene tax levy elicits in the first place.
We're talking the City of Banned Big Gulps here. What do you expect? While the uber-nanny hypocrite Bloomberg presided over the Nathan's Hot Dog eating contest and attempts to twist ballot initiatives all across the country.
"Are Facts Obsolete?
Some of us, who are old enough to remember the old television police series "Dragnet," may remember Sgt. Joe Friday saying, "Just the facts, ma'am." But that would be completely out of place today. Facts are becoming obsolete, as recent events have demonstrated.
What matters today is how well you can concoct a story that fits people's preconceptions and arouses their emotions. Politicians like New York mayor Bill de Blasio, professional demagogues like Al Sharpton and innumerable irresponsible people in the media have shown that they have great talent in promoting a lynch mob atmosphere toward the police.
Grand juries that examine hard facts live in a different world from mobs who listen to rhetoric and politicians who cater to the mobs.
During the controversy over the death of Trayvon Martin, for example, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus said that George Zimmerman had tracked Trayvon Martin down and shot him like a dog. The fact is that Zimmerman did not have to track down Trayvon Martin, who was sitting right on top of him, punching him till his face was bloody.
After the death of Michael Brown, members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in Congress, with their hands held up, saying "don't shoot." Although there were some who claimed that this is what Michael Brown said and did, there were other witnesses -- all black, by the way -- who said that Brown was charging toward the policeman when he was shot.
What was decisive was not what either set of witnesses said, but what the autopsy revealed, an autopsy involving three sets of forensic experts, including one representing Michael Brown's family. Witnesses can lie but the physical facts don't lie, even if politicians, mobs and the media prefer to take lies seriously."...
I watched and listened to the entire video. Came away with a "need" to look into this guy a little more. Came away from that with the opinion he doesn't deserve anyone's time of day. He's a "thug" advocating destruction of property through open vandalism. He's a moocher living on public assistance through a disability pension for congestive heart failure (not saying he doesn't deserve this help, but ironic, none the less) and other assorted physical impediments. His open advocacy for violent resistance also makes him one of those "behind the scenes" kind of guys urging and pushing others to engage in their own dirty work while keeping his own hands physically clean. What a joke!
ZHawke wrote: I watched and listened to the entire video. Came away with a "need" to look into this guy a little more. Came away from that with the opinion he doesn't deserve anyone's time of day. He's a "thug" advocating destruction of property through open vandalism. He's a moocher living on public assistance through a disability pension for congestive heart failure (not saying he doesn't deserve this help, but ironic, none the less) and other assorted physical impediments. His open advocacy for violent resistance also makes him one of those "behind the scenes" kind of guys urging and pushing others to engage in their own dirty work while keeping his own hands physically clean. What a joke!
So if you broaden the definition of "thug" to include those advocating open vandalism, instead of the traditional "cruel or vicious ruffian, robber or murderer" then all most all of the protesters across the nation are now thugs. Okay.
HEARTLESS wrote: So if you broaden the definition of "thug" to include those advocating open vandalism, instead of the traditional "cruel or vicious ruffian, robber or murderer" then all most all of the protesters across the nation are now thugs. Okay.
Why would I do that? You're the one who's saying Vanderboegh is worth listening to. You even go so far as to say "Anyone that values the freedoms we have left should watch that video." The concept of who is, and who is not, a "thug" goes both ways. This guy just keeps his own hands clean while urging others to do his dirty work for him. In my mind, that's the worst kind of manipulator.
HEARTLESS wrote: So if you broaden the definition of "thug" to include those advocating open vandalism, instead of the traditional "cruel or vicious ruffian, robber or murderer" then all most all of the protesters across the nation are now thugs. Okay.
Why would I do that? You're the one who's saying Vanderboegh is worth listening to. You even go so far as to say "Anyone that values the freedoms we have left should watch that video." The concept of who is, and who is not, a "thug" goes both ways. This guy just keeps his own hands clean while urging others to do his dirty work for him. In my mind, that's the worst kind of manipulator.
I can't answer your question, why DID you do that?
HEARTLESS wrote: I can't answer your question, why DID you do that?
Can't answer, or won't answer? Trying to deflect analysis away from what you're trying to say about the thug in the video won't make your assertion go away. Nor will it validate your assertion this is a guy even worth listening to.
