He has a FB Page!  http://www.facebook.com/pages/Officer-B … 660?v=wall

Do you want the link that shows it?

Dmtdust wrote:

Do you want the link that shows it?

Sure. Truth and beauty, you know.

  Brought to you by the people of www.freekeene.com who have effectively legalized marijauna, public nudity and much much more including bankrupting the city of Keene, NH using only civil disobedience.

Now soap bubbles are an offensive weapon. She should have continued blowing and let Officer Buttholes explain himself to a judge.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Didn't anyone here ever get into an "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you", ad infinitum, battle with a sibling or someone else you are trying to torment? Glad to know that political discourse has reached such sophisticated levels these days.

Are the police mis-using their power part of the discussion process?  I think so.

Dmtdust wrote:

Are the police mis-using their power part of the discussion process?  I think so.

She was looking to get arrested and she wanted to make sure the entire scene was ridiculous (makes for good YouTube);  Assault with a soap bubble is still assault.

I think it's just reward for wasting our tax dollars like that.

Jesus. Even the hippies are fat now?

Emmeran wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Come on Em, this is about power over.

Nah you're confusing the situation; the cops don't want to be there and the protesters are trying to find ways to cause mayhem so the party riot can start.

If it was a power play it was a play by the protester with a "look what I can do to you" act; why do you think it was put on the internet so fast.  While many cops do live for the "power over", this was a situation of the cops just wanting to be left alone.

Assault by Soap Bubbles?  Provocation maybe.

Inciting a riot most likely, refusual to desist and probably 15 other ordinances that technically fit the situation and actions.

Give me a break Dusty, those kids aren't out there for a political purpose; they want to run amok and they want to get on YouTube.

All legality and possible provocation aside, lets just ask ourselves whether or not the people protesting were harming anyone or their property.  The cop on the other hand gets his entire paycheck through compulsory means and handled the situation with violence i.e. throwing the provocateur in a cage for reasons other than self-defense.  The state is funded purely through theft and the only tool they have available to them is aggression and threat of force.  If you ignore the PR campaign and flowery words that they use to describe what they do you'll find that they are nothing more than an organized crime syndicate.  I choose to side with the peaceful protester regardless of how much or how little I agree with what they are protesting.  There is nothing within the realm of matter and energy that gives one human authority over another.

Dirckman wrote:

I choose to side with the peaceful protester regardless of how much or how little I agree with what they are protesting.  There is nothing within the realm of matter and energy that gives one human authority over another.

If you recall this was part of the prelude to the riot; much like every other G8 summit these "peaceful protestors" have made it a point of looting and burning as much as they can.  Their reputation preceded them and demanded that even the slightest provocation be responded to in an expedited manner.  The police were only there in an attempt to protect the properties of the citizens and community; naturally they failed to do so.

Let's compare this to the Phelps protests; the Phelps' know the technicalities of the law and very deliberately avoid even appearing to infringe.  So by way of comparison the Phelp's are the model of peaceful protest and these guys are the example of how not to do it.

Dirckman wrote:

There is nothing within the realm of matter and energy that gives one human authority over another.

Dude, you are too stoned.  Domination over others is the basic law of survival; humans start attempting it at day one, as do all other life forms.  My employees fear that if they piss me off I will upset the apple cart of their carefully manufactured little lives - that is domination. (I would never do so unless they forced my hand, but that is the reality)

Last edited by Emmeran (2010-10-18 20:18:13)

Dirckman wrote:

The difference between you and your employees and political "authority" is that the employee/employer relationship is voluntary in nature.

And this young lady's presence was not voluntary in nature?


This wasn't a random confrontation on sunny summer afternoon; this protester intentionally sought out and harassed the officer (the female, who was very cute).  This is where you and Dusty are confusing the situation.

Emmeran wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

The difference between you and your employees and political "authority" is that the employee/employer relationship is voluntary in nature.

And this young lady's presence was not voluntary in nature?


This wasn't a random confrontation on sunny summer afternoon; this protester intentionally sought out and harassed the officer (the female, who was very cute).  This is where you and Dusty are confusing the situation.

The big difference here is that the representative of the state used both force and the threat of force to achieve his ends...  The protester used nothing but peaceful protest.

Incitement and confrontation with Pustefix!  Oh, the horror.

Emmeran wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

The big difference here is that the representative of the state used both force and the threat of force to achieve his ends...  The protester used nothing but peaceful protest.

However the protester was part of a larger group which did use force and threat of force and her specific actions were intended to disturb the peace and force confrontation.  The protester wasn't being peaceful, she was pretending to be peaceful while she took confrontative actions; brick or bubble it's a foreign object with the intent to incite.

This is an easy position for you to take now whilst you're young and strong; the time quickly approaches when you will be old and weak, methinks you'll sing a different tune then.

I have nothing wrong with the existence of a protection service, I just don't feel that it should be funded coercively.  If I live in a time and place that I find to be hostile I should be able to invest in a gun, home security, or even a protection service that is kept in check by market forces.  Look how great our "protection" service is now that is kept in check with political forces.  We have nothing but a long string of arbitrary laws and victimless crimes.  People are told what they can and cannot put in their bodies, what age they can have consensual sex, what they can and cannot do with the money they earn, how their children are educated, etc. etc., all with the threat of force.  Most people would find it immoral to control the people around them with force, but never blink an eye when they go into the ballot box to vote for someone to force everyone to do what they want.  There are no products or services that should be provided at the point of a gun.

Dmtdust wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

The big difference here is that the representative of the state used both force and the threat of force to achieve his ends...  The protester used nothing but peaceful protest.

However the protester was part of a larger group which did use force and threat of force and her specific actions were intended to disturb the peace and force confrontation.  The protester wasn't being peaceful, she was pretending to be peaceful while she took confrontative actions; brick or bubble it's a foreign object with the intent to incite.

This is an easy position for you to take now whilst you're young and strong; the time quickly approaches when you will be old and weak, methinks you'll sing a different tune then.

Most of the violence came from Agent Provocateurs.... per usual.  Having belonged to political groups in the past that were borderline, the ones who threw the first rock, suggested bombing something was a cop. 

Give it a break Em, you are coming across as an Authoritarian.

There have also been police who have been exposed for playing fake anarchists at G20 protests.  Their role is to incite violence which gives the uniformed officers an excuse to make mass arrests.

http://justlive.us/featured-posts/fake- … the-state/

Well... Let the Clash and The Battle Ship Potempkin put it into perspective...

Dirckman, Dmt....You cannot battle Emmeran with logic.  He operates only by the force of his gut.   He operates solely off of whether his gut tells him that is actions are right.  Logic or any other way of weighing right and wrong are totally irrelevant, and the fact that his moral values have no relevance to anyone not named Emmeran is irrelevant.  Don't open that door.

There is only one word for this relationship: Co-dependence.

The girl got what she wanted: An insignificant arrest to prove her dedication to being a freedom fighter and a good story to tell around the bong circle the next day. The cop got what he wanted: To show that he was able to do his job and make an arrest instead of having to wander around and find something else to look busy.

phreddy wrote:

Let me ask everyone a simple question.  Let's say you're standing on the sidewalk and a group of hippies comes up to you and one of them starts blowing bubbles in your face.  You happen to have a stun gun in your pocket and a billy club in your belt.  You take the bubbles as a friendly gesture until you realize that this person is not going to stop and is purposefully mocking you.  You politely ask the person to stop and when he/she doesn't, yoiu finally demand the person stop.  When the harrassment continues, do you,
A.  Taze the Bro?
B.  Smack him up side the head with the club?
C.  Both of the above?
D.  Run and hide like a little girl?

None of the above.  There are always more choices.

Emmeran wrote:

I know the real world is a cold and scary place Tojo, but you'll be ok; we're all here to help you understand those uncomfortable concepts like laws, consequences and all the other trappings of modern civilization.  See, there is life outside of the Google complex, and the bright thing up there in the sky - that's the sun!

I just miss these little trolling sessions.  I'm getting rusty.

Last edited by tojo2000 (2010-10-19 13:03:33)

A couple of bad eggs on each side turns the whole thing into a shit show.

I like the "intelligence gathering" bit, that was funny.

Ultimately, Officer Bubbles will end up working for Blackwater as Joe Miller's bodyguard.

Emmeran wrote:

Come on Dirck, now you are asking the police to arbitrarily enforce or not enforce laws.  (Which in the face of a citizen or politician's complaint, is career suicide and they'll just find a different cop who will do what they want anyway.)  The cop's job is black and white a legitimate complaint is registered; the courts are left to deal with the muddled grey in between - you know the supposed "wise men" we elect who are really just unsuccessful lawyers.

I know how the system works and I'm not asking the police or the courts to do anything but go away.  It's niave to think that the state will do anything for you.  Why ask them to protect your freedoms when as far as I can tell they are the only ones taking them away.  Why ask them to protect you from harm when they have a body count that puts the combined body count of all criminal gangs to shame.  Why ask them to protect your property when they take more of it than anyone else.  We're living in some kind of fantasy world here in which people will defend the actions of the state (sometimes to the death) as long as "their guy" is in power.  The moment a person asks the state to do anything they are using the threat of violence to impose their will on other people.  We need to quit legitimizing these useless parasites.

Emmeran wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

I know how the system works and I'm not asking the police or the courts to do anything but go away.  It's niave to think that the state will do anything for you.  Why ask them to protect your freedoms when as far as I can tell they are the only ones taking them away.  Why ask them to protect you from harm when they have a body count that puts the combined body count of all criminal gangs to shame.  Why ask them to protect your property when they take more of it than anyone else.  We're living in some kind of fantasy world here in which people will defend the actions of the state (sometimes to the death) as long as "their guy" is in power.  The moment a person asks the state to do anything they are using the threat of violence to impose their will on other people.  We need to quit legitimizing these useless parasites.

Is this part of your Manifesto?

Yea, pretty much....  I've found that it works best on lefties and atheists, most Republicans are in denial because Jesus told them to respect authority and not to think for themselves.

Dmtdust wrote:

Dirkman will be here all evening, he'll sign autographs, and show you his willy if you ask politely.  Strange, I agree with pretty much everything he said.

I was doing the whole fiscal conservative, big L Libertarian, objectivist, classical liberal thing for awhile there and mistakenly downloaded a small L libertarian/voluntaryist podcast about a year ago.  I was a little uneasy about the whole anarchy thing for awhile until I found out that it isn't what they told me it was in public school.  It's nice, it's the first non-contradictory personal philosophy that I've found.  It's also really broadened my horizons because I could care or less if anyone is a communist, socialist, capitalist, religious nut or whatever as long as they don't use political means to impose their beliefs on me.  It's just natural law and the non aggression principle taken to it's logical conclusion.