Comments on: Frustrated voter: ‘I’ll bust your nose’

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:42:03 +0000

Being ubiquitous doesn’t make it right.

By: Issodhos

Issodhos — Wed, 16 May 2012 23:58:53 +0000

Goodness, Jon, whether it is in a small town, large city, a state or nation-wide, the law is routinely “selectively enforced”. There is no country in the world where this is not true. Indeed, it is apparently organic to most any heirarchal group. One need only look at the various forums on the Internet to see the same routine selective enforcement of the ‘law’ (rules) based on who one is or what socio-political positions they express. That is just the way it is. Your desire to leave it up to the law does not alter its routine selectivity (indeed, it is the enforcers of the law that are the source of such selectivity}. Even the makers of the law often write it in such a manner as to make it inherently selective.
Yours,
Issodhos

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:22:03 +0000

This is probably completely unnecessary, but here I go again:

I’m pretty sure that if I showed up, by myself, on Elmer’s land and made a lot of annoying noises about his wind turbine, I’d probably get punched in the nose. And it would probably lay me out flat – He looks like a guy that could swing for the cheap seats without even trying too hard.

However, if I showed up not by myself, but with twenty of my “good friends” from Chicago in expensive tailored suits that emphasize the fact that they are wider than they are tall, yet not with an ounce of fat between them…

And let’s say that fifteen of these nice chaps and I confront our good friend Elmer, and that while we are ‘talking’ to him the remaining five go and wreck his turbine. The other fifteen and I just smile and explain why it’s not a good idea and suggest that maybe next time it’s not just his turbine that will end up in pieces.

See now why this sort of ‘I’m gonna punch you in the nose!’ attitude would be amusing… ?

Except it’s not funny. People still believe in it. The only solution is the law, which has bigger guns and more people than anyone, and you’ve already pointed out that sometimes it just ‘looks the other way’.

I’ll raise the point of ‘selective enforcement’ again, and I’ve raised it before. If there is any threat to a free country, and free countrymen, above all others, it is ‘selective enforcement of the law’.

I like to laugh. But at this I cannot.

Jon

PS – The pictures of what I looked like after washing it off would be quite convincing to a jury during the ‘damages’ phase of a civil trial. There’s also the idea of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ being a crime in and of itself, and I’m quite sure the Constitutio.. I’ll stop now. J.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 16 May 2012 04:23:03 +0000

Unfortunately, that does say something about the local police department, although I must admit I’d rather say so to you than to the cop.

Would you like the cop to look away if the maimed came back the next day with a dog larger and stronger and meaner than yours?

By: Doug Thompson

Doug Thompson — Wed, 16 May 2012 00:14:37 +0000

I wouldn’t have to do anything but turn the dog loose with a one-word order: “Maim.” Works every time.

By: Issodhos

Issodhos — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:08:28 +0000

Dang, Doug, I’d hate to see what would have happened to him if he had also insulted your dawg.
Yours,
Issodhos

By: Danny Adams

Danny Adams — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:28:34 +0000

“…land use is a personal choice and property rights an absolute.”

I agree with this as long as your land use doesn’t affect my land use. I mean actual harm here, not something arbitrary like property values. If you want to have a few tons of manure on your property, for instance, I don’t care about that; I’ve gotten used to worse smells. If you pour used motor oil into a creek that’s upstream from my property, though, then I have a problem. (Real personal example, that.)

By: Doug Thompson

Doug Thompson — Tue, 15 May 2012 08:19:29 +0000

I’m not about to tell Elmer to do anything.

Some years ago, I grabbed a city councilman by the throat and slammed him against a wall after he publicly insulted my wife. I told him that if he ever said anything like that again, the only sound he would be capable of making would be through a tracheal tube. He shut up and the police chief, who was standing nearby, looked the other way.

Of course I was younger then, still drinking and hadn’t learned to control my temper.

By: Issodhos

Issodhos — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:09:26 +0000

Doug, please note that I have been consistent in specifying “physical” resistance. It is not “paranoia” to understand the consequences of physical resistance by Elmer to government intrusion onto his property or the extent of the authority held by government to use force in place of persuasion. Personally, though I understand his sentiments, I would suggest Elmer not get physical. Course, that’s just me.
Yours,
Issodhos

By: Doug Thompson

Doug Thompson — Mon, 14 May 2012 23:36:09 +0000

I can’t subscribe to or share your paranoia. I’ve resisted local, state and federal governments in many ways over the years, am still standing and haven’t spent a minute in jail (except for 72 hours as part of a newspaper assignment).

Instead of fearing governments, I treat them with equal contempt and skepticism. Those who cower in fear of government are doomed to lose. Those who let paranoia rule their lives are destined to fail.

For me, failure is never an option.