No, but I know they're out there. Unfortunately, "military-style" police forces draw out the violent people of the world. They join so they can live out their twisted fantasies. And I have to disagree with trump - one bad apple CAN spoil the whole bunch. Many times the good ones who observe the bad ones actions, go along with it lest they be ostracized or "teased". Sometimes it can bring out the "evil" in them (we all have that tendency inside). As in: if he can do it why can't I? And when these "bad apples" get to be in charge, they tend to contaminate the entire force.
Maybe we need to just start over then. Stop trying to reconstruct the garment. Do alterations. Toss it out and cut anew! But who is the patternmaker, who is the cutter and who is the seamstress who puts it all together? My mom worked for designers so that is why this analogy. The pattern is only as good as the designer. And the seamstress can make it or break with shoddy work. SIGH. Thank you for your thoughtful reply Shuhak! :)
Precisely. Early unions were there to protect the workers from greedy seedy money-hungry bosses. Now? At least the police union is there to protect murderers. Nice ta know ain't it though? :( Thank you for your reply Shuhak! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at June 14, 2020 3:22 AM MDT
Probably the same proportionate number as the percent of anesthesiologists who choose that profession in order to satisfy their slightly skewed desire to have complete life and death control of the patients they anesthetize.
While the probably exception of the Republican Guards who were charged---among other things---with preventing a coup de tat and similar things against Saddam Hussein. when you draw your employees from human beings, you will get a mix of people, some with less than ideal motivations and general philosophies about the other human beings that they are required to interact with.
Unfortunately the less than ideal motivations and erroneous philosophies are present in what one of your friends determines to be no more than "FLUFF"
Fortunately the community realizes that the "Fluff" is very important, and is why they do psychological screening for potential employees of law enforcement.
It happened again yesterday tom. This time the cop shot a man armed with a taser (considered to be non-deadly) who was RUNNING AWAY in the back and murdered him. I call that MURDER. The worldwide protests against racism and police brutality that was kick-started by the MURDER of George Lloyd is still going on and it happens AGAIN! These cops are brainless braindead terrified robotic automatons. They didn't even have the decency to allow for the mourning to settle down. The murderer has been fired. The Police Chief has resigned. The other cop involved in the tussling was put on administrative leave. I expect more is going to happen to the murderer and the accomplice. Welcome to the real world where heartfelt peaceful protests don't mean a thing. If nothing changes what was the point? Also you say one of my "friends" uses the word FLUFF. In what context and which friend is that? I do not recall reading that word in any context. Could be my bad memory but since you brought it up would please clarify and identify because I am perplexed. Thank you for your reply tom and Happy Sunday! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at June 15, 2020 7:38 AM MDT
He is talking about me. As I have said personal life issues of POLITICIANS does not matter in the general. It is the POLICIES they pass or refuse to pass. The personal stuff it Fluff. Ie. Which matters more now? Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern or Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that deregulated banks that led to the great recession in 2008? I say the deregulation mattered much more. The affair was inbetween Bill, Hillary, Monica and God. So in terms of politics the affair is FLUFF.
It's your reasoning that I question, 2cents.---all policies that are in existence are born from within the personal convictions about what is acceptable (judged to be good by the person who implements that policy) vs unacceptable (judged to be bad by the person who then choose not to implement that policy).
To continue with your Clinton analogy, in counterpoint to your assertion about the result of Clinton signing the bill, "The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."
So, you have an opinion about the "Clinton policy" that apparently many experts do not share, and you post that opinion as a "fact" and then try to use it to "prove" that your opinion that "FLUFF" in politics is meaningless.
LOL. The deregulation had EVERYTHING to do with it. But in either case, support or oppose the law....the law certainly mattered more to the financial well being of the country than Clinton's inappropriate behavior.
As you have promised, you will always respond to questions / comments about religion and politics.
Personally, I've never understood that motivation. While I am perfectly comfortable with responding to either myself, I try to avoid responding unless I think others are being unreasonably misled.
But, at least more insight into FLUFF---thank you.
I have never promised any response. I have said I tend to answer those type questions first.
My usage of the word...Fluff is about politics. Laws/policy positions are what matter. What I answer has nothing to do with making laws. So my personal answers have nothing to do with the word.
As a former police officer, I can say that the number of cops accused of crimes is low (exact figures unknown) but police wrongdoing can still shake a community. Of course, and as usual, the already shaken community gets even more shaken when the ratings hungry media add their own end of the world, hate all cops slant to the story.
Shuhak 