| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/16/2002 8:43:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
One big flame war. |
Posted on 08/15/2002 9:08:14 AM PDT by ResistorSister
|
KALKI AVTARA |
Kalki, the future and last Incarnation of Lord Vishnu will appear at the end of present age (Kalyuga), when moral excellence would no longer exist, the rule of law would disappear and all would be in darkness. Kalki would then ride on a horse, holding a flaming sword and would save mankind and would restore Dharma / Righteousness. Kalki Avtara would take place in house of a Brahmin named Shrihari Vishnuyasha
Sounds like he is about due, IMHO!
I was not targetting the rich necessarily here. The collective assets are democratic assets. Individual elites can be a leftist who think it is not ok to take money but it is ok to take the lives of people who have it.
You have not read my post.
You post implies that reasonable minds may differ, that you don't necessarily agree with Matthews, but he was reaonable in his error. Matthews' delusion was not reasonable. Not even close.
I am not saying it was reasonable. I am saying that if in court, he would have a defensible argument. One cannot under color of law confine people, especialy armed. It's a a double felony upgraded with the threat of a deadly weapon (cop car in a car pursuit and his gun are deadly weapons). A cop stoping someone with a seatbelt should be given benefit of the doubt by the driver, but the driver in question is not in a court of law when that happens.
People say all kinds of idiotic crap.
I am not a Libertarian Populist, not even a constitutionalist. I am just exploring the custody limits of government.
If a cop has a suspicion about a driver without a seatbelt and stops him because he does not have a seat belt, profiling him, I have no objections to this custody grab.
I have an objection for power grabs. Seat belt law is simply illegal. End of story. Giving a ticket because someone has no seat belt puts the cop on a fine line between custody check of a driver and actual power grab. In Indiana every year or so you hear about a state cop who is charged as a serial rapist of highway female drivers.
Like I was just saying...
So you do not believe in reasonable doubt. You guys presume the guy guilty off the bat. You don't look into it, you gloss over the possible findings of a trial, and when someone proposes to look into it, you all get emotional.
It is obvious, after all, that a man can claim the cop took advantage of the seat belt law to abuse him and beat him up, hence he pulled the gun. If on the other hand the guy was speeding and using a car, a lethal weapon, to evade custody and threaten other drivers, such defense is not believable. I do not ask you guys to believe one way or the other, but to see what is believable and tragic.
Usualy two good guys do not kill each other. Obviously one of them was wrong, and I am not jumping to conclusions, let alone falling for the cop trap of pushing a verdict for the trial of this tragedy onto an emotional public. I find it disgusting that
1. Constitutionalists push their agendas
2. Cops and the media push an emotional vigilante trial through the media.
I am still not informed about what happened here. So I can speculate all I can.
Exactly, the set up of equivocal situations like these by the "authorities" makes me shiver. It is inherently unsafe.
There is a fine line between; a cop taking normal custody grab of a suspicious activity or asking a question or asking to wear seat belts, even if giving a ticket thereafter; and an outright power grab.
Most people were sent to Gulags because they were told first that only a few questions would be asked, and their families thought daddy would be back in 5 min. They never saw those people again. Disarmament of the population is also a very equivocal situation, in fact, our Founding Fathers specificialy said to refuse it. Christians are taught to spread the word, because spreading the word of being saved allows for you to confess so that people can check and balance your behavior, so that you agree that you are not infallible and that when you sin you make sure others are there to take temporary rotating custody of you. I do not any problem with armed governments taking temporary local rotating custody over people. I just have a problem when government thinks it is infallible and believes it never needs the help or custody of citizens.
This is the fine line between custody grab of a cop stop and complete power grab. When they go beyond the seat belt and make things equivocal, as if they were sinless snooping around like that, it is not healthy at all.
You give yourself away with that. You haven't an argument so you resort to pejorative.
Name who has defended Matthews and we'll see if they're libertarian.
Go read the Constitutionalist platform. Loonytarians who undertake the exercise will believe they've died and gone to heaven.
Where is that platform?
Without having read it, I know that people who interweave God and the Constitution to contrive a holy crusade are not libertarian.
Hard-headed and dim-witted they may be, but they sure do hate the gubbmint. That wholly redeems them from their thick-headedness--makes them feel downright righteous.
Thin-headed babble, righteously delivered.
Righteous enough to cause one of their esteemed thinkers to feel justified in gunning down a 29 year-old police officer for daring to enforce routine traffic laws.
Preposterous. I doubt that you can find one libertarian to have done such a thing. Religious nuts act this way.
What is this? The showdown at the OK corral?
Tell me what is your point and I'll comment on it. My point is that Matthews was a right-wing religionist and not by any stretch a libertarian.
Remember, the East Germans were the Democratic Republic of something or other, but that sure didn't make the country democratic, merely by slapping a label on it. The People's Republic of China isn't a Republic, either. So the label doesn't really matter with respect to Don Matthews.
You could be here from now 'til Doomsday arguing over labels, but I hope no one will argue the fact that Matthews was a seriously misguided individual who highjacked the Constitution to fit his own nefarious views--in short, if there's any label to be applied to him, it's "COP-KILLING, PARANOID NUT".
Lavaroise, this is merely an observation, but it seems as if you have a fixation on seat belts. You never fail to mention seat belts in any of your posts. No, please don't tell me what's up with that, because we'll just hear more sermons about the evils of seat belts.
If I believed in typing people that way then I'd have to low crawl to the mailbox lest some letter carrier go postal on me.
As I said in another post, he did what he did as an individual.
Among other things, the "esteemed Constitutionalist thinker" Matthews taught other eager self-described Constitutionalists that police officers could be executed for daring to perform their functions without having taken an oath. He had been teaching this crap for some time even as he ascended in the dismal poorly-populated pantheon of Constitutionalist scholordom.
The Constitutionalist website is a real work of dark art, and if you descend into its neo-anarchist hell pit, you will find listed in its party platform every obscene and twisted doctrine in its arsenal--all drafted with one obsession in mind: paranoid hatred of governmental authority.
The anti-government spleen-vent doctrines listed at the Constitutionalist website could have been cut and pasted from the posts of over-the-top self-described libertarians--particularly the atheists--who regularly post at FR. The fit is amazing.
Matthews may have considered himself religious, but his murderous rampage didn't proceed from his religious convictions--but from his bizarre, irrational, pathological anti-government paranoia. This warped anti-government obsession appears to find resonance with the decimons and Demidogs who post at FR.
Now I can understand why decimon would fight so hard to disown Matthews while defending the mental/ideological poison that created Matthews. He is similar to the husband of Matthew's disciple who shushed his disciple-wife when she expressed support for the killing of the police officer. The ideology is hideously ugly and dangerous and must be kept well-masked lest others see it for what it is. The time has not yet come for the uprising. The mask must be kept in place until then. (and yes, there have been MANY posts at FR that have announced that in the dim future someday, there will be total, brutal, physical, and final revenge on anyone who supported "statist" laws such as the War on Drugs; they are stockpiling their .50 caliber weapons in anticipation of the day),
You may be concerned about unfair "labelling" and "quibbling." I am not. I don't view it as unfair, but wise and wholly accurate. Neither is it quibbling. It is decimon who is quibbling, vainly tap-dancing in an attempt to draw attention away from the hideousness of the whack-job Constitutionalist-Libertarian doctrines that coalesced in Matthews' head and led him to commit his murderous act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
