The degree of Homelessness in the US

[SR1419]

Yeah, backtrack all you can... 'The Out of Control Cop' video is particularly relevant as the first guy beaten to a pulp was collapsed in his car in a diabetic coma... it could be you SR... you would still need to be beaten to a pulp for resisting arrest whilst you were unconscious... it's only logical... that's why the cop is still on the force merrily going around beating up and terrorizing victims to his hearts content... all with the blessing of the Sheriff's Office... wonderful world!

You said you wouldn't visit the US because you didn't want to get "beaten to death by the cops for jaywalking".

I pointed out the Bunk in that statement because that has never happened before. You tried to exaggerate and generalize in order to hide your lack of real world experience in the US.

I never claimed police brutality never happens or that it isn't a problem but it is the exception not the norm. I am well aware of law enforcement issues in the US. I have had many more encounters with police in the US than you have and haven't been beaten at all much less to death.

You posted bunk then resort to making things up about what I "pretend' and "claim" to try and cover your bunk.

weak sauce, Oxy.

 

[Cairenn]

You did the same thing to me Oxy. I don't understand why you continue living in the UK, since you seem to despise them while promoting Russia. I

There are tens of 1,000s of traffic stops every day in the US and you choose to use a stop that is from 2010, as an example. And most of those are resolved without any problems.


I don't understand why he is still on the force, or why the state didn't pull his peace officer's license. There is more to the story than a short YT. The guy ran from the police, did he almost hit someone? The policeman thought he was drunk. Drunks kill folks every day in the US. Had that cop held a child while they died from a drunk driver? WRONG, yes, but police are human and they do make mistakes and have emotions, just like normal people.

The incident was caught by the dash cam of a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper present during the incident, which began as a chase in the early morning hours of Oct. 29, 2010. Police suspected the man was driving drunk.

It was not clear why the man led police on a chase.

The video showed that once the car was pulled over, police officers swarmed the driver and began kicking him.

"Stop resisting motherf****r. Stop resisting motherf****r," an officer yelled as the man lay on the ground.

However, the man was not drunk – he was suffering a diabetic episode. Insulin shock can mimic the symptoms of intoxication.

"They should have been aware of that," Moody told ABC 13. "They should have been trained on how to handle that and I think they made some assumptions that were wrong."

Later in the video, the officers appeared to realize the man wasn't drunk and called for medical help.

"We found some insulin in his pocket," said an officer. "Tell them to expedite. He's semi-conscious."

 

[Oxymoron]

You did the same thing to me Oxy. I don't understand why you continue living in the UK, since you seem to despise them while promoting Russia. I

There are tens of 1,000s of traffic stops every day in the US and you choose to use a stop that is from 2010, as an example. And most of those are resolved without any problems.


I don't understand why he is still on the force, or why the state didn't pull his peace officer's license. There is more to the story than a short YT. The guy ran from the police, did he almost hit someone? The policeman thought he was drunk. Drunks kill folks every day in the US. Had that cop held a child while they died from a drunk driver? WRONG, yes, but police are human and they do make mistakes and have emotions, just like normal people.

Oh the irony of it all. Debunkers pushing bunk and propaganda.

You continually and willfully insist things about me which are patently not true and which are contrary to my writing on here, (being your sole source of knowledge about me and the way I think), which can only be for one reason and that can only be that you don't like anyone criticising the actions/policies of the the American government.

My criticism boils down to a very few issues but they have massive impact on America and the world. I feel entitled to voice my criticism because these issues affect the world in which I live. I list them here:

I criticise:

Western governments for treating it's citizens like mushrooms... keeping them in the dark and feeding them BS

The west for hypocrisy on human rights issues

For warmongering... the U.S being the biggest warmonger of all, (at this point in time)

America, for spending half the worldwide total of all military expense... it is wildly excessive.

America for failing to build it's economy, (at the expense of military spending) and allowing an unnecessarily high percentage of it's citizenry to become impoverished.

Multinational companies/bankers/traders for profiteering and fraud and operating a gigantic Ponzi scheme

For employing the police force, which is supposed to be to protect and serve the people, (although they conveniently leave out the last bit), as a means to intimidate and oppress the people by use of excessive, (often lethal) force.

Does that make me guilty of being 'unpatriotic'... well according to Bush and the 'Patriot act' it does... Not only that it makes me and billions of other people 'terrorists' because he says...

President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism.
In a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said coalition partners would be called upon to back up their support with action. He said he would deliver that message in his speech Saturday to the United Nations.

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." (Full story)

Effectively he was trying to abolish any dissent... well that is not democracy

You repeatedly attempt to use Bushlike tactics and make accusations against me which are unadulterated bunk.

When you defend the things I criticise you are endorsing and perpetuating them. You are therefore no different to Bush/Obama in this regard.

Your defense and denial of war atrocities, enables and perpetuates war atrocities.

Your defense and denial of torture, enables and perpetuates torture.

Your marginalisation of 'out of control cop claims', enables and perpetuates out of control cop actions.

Your defense of multinational corporations' illegal and abusive business practices enable and perpetuate the same.

Your willful bunk concerning my alleged support of terrorists, dictators and communist regimes is an out and out absurdity, blatant propaganda and a lie worthy of McCarthyism at it's height

 

[Grieves]

No- oxyMoron- I suggest You reconsider...you chose those words for a reason- why? propaganda no doubt..

Wow. fascinating to watch you bob and weave.

Can't just man-up and admit you were completely speaking out of your ass.

You were speaking of the present tense Oxy- and you know it.

Its not semantics. Its about being factually correct. It wasn't an even remotely accurate statement.

Ahh, irony.
I know! I can play you, and tell you that by 'tent cities', Oxy meant cities in which a tent dress is all the rage! You can play me, and explain why that's stupid!

 

[Cairenn]

And Oxy, you support folks like Putin, and Saddam. YOU excuse them from anything bad they do, because you dislike the West. You say you don't support them but you do. Take your comments about the imprisonment of Pussy Riot. First you attacked them for their music, then said that the same would happen here. When I pointed out that there is a difference between an arrest for trespassing and years in prison, you ignored it.

You excused Saddam and his criminal buddies and family for stealing the money provided for food and medicine by the 'Oil for Food' program and instead blamed the US and the UK. That is the same thing that is done when someone blames a rape victim for her rape.

But you have chosen to live in the West, take advantage of the things the government gives/allows/encourages. If you lived under a government that really did what you claim that the US and the UK does, you would be in a small windowless room with no internet.

I have come to the conclusion, that you like to argue, and that a real conversation is impossible with you. Therefore I am not playing your 'game' any more. Go find someone else to argue with.

 

[Oxymoron]

And Oxy, you support folks like Putin, and Saddam. YOU excuse them from anything bad they do, because you dislike the West. You say you don't support them but you do. Take your comments about the imprisonment of Pussy Riot. First you attacked them for their music, then said that the same would happen here. When I pointed out that there is a difference between an arrest for trespassing and years in prison, you ignored it.

You excused Saddam and his criminal buddies and family for stealing the money provided for food and medicine by the 'Oil for Food' program and instead blamed the US and the UK. That is the same thing that is done when someone blames a rape victim for her rape.

But you have chosen to live in the West, take advantage of the things the government gives/allows/encourages. If you lived under a government that really did what you claim that the US and the UK does, you would be in a small windowless room with no internet.

I have come to the conclusion, that you like to argue, and that a real conversation is impossible with you. Therefore I am not playing your 'game' any more. Go find someone else to argue with.

Fascinating. I thought this was a debunking site not somewhere where one indulges their fantasies about other posters. Excellent work of fiction. Like I said worthy of McCarthyism at it height but utter bunk and lies.

Very telling you do not quote me as evidence... you like facts don't you... that's what you keep saying... let's see some of my quotes in context.

 

[Cairenn]

Your words on other threads tell the story.

It seems that you did not understand me, however. "I have come to the conclusion, that you like to argue, and that a real conversation is impossible with you. Therefore I am not playing your 'game' any more. Go find someone else to argue with."

Last response to you. Period. You have insulted me enough.

 

[Oxymoron]

Your words on other threads tell the story.

It seems that you did not understand me, however. "I have come to the conclusion, that you like to argue, and that a real conversation is impossible with you. Therefore I am not playing your 'game' any more. Go find someone else to argue with."

Last response to you. Period. You have insulted me enough.

So you are content to make outrageous and fraudulent claims without backing it up with anything of substance... such as contextual quotes... how unsurprising, especially as they do not exist.

Still you are correct about one thing... my words throughout this site, tell the story.

NB, I would appreciate it if you do not delete these posts Mick, as you did with Soulfly and Jay's posts which operated on a similar unsubstantiated McCarthyesque style attack/theory on me. they were neatly excised but I think it would have been better to let the record stand and people judge for themselves who has merit and who does not. And for the record, I am quite happy for Soulfly's and Jay's posts/theories about me to be reinstated. They were debunked, which is what this site is supposed to be about, debunking bunk, ergo they should stand.

PS, I am not criticising the deletions as I recognise it was done under the politeness policy but I am prepared 'not to be offended', in the interests of debunking false claims.