Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

wcaseym (40.01)

Why do we need police explained!



April 25, 2010 – Comments (14)

... we only need law enforcement for unsophisticated criminals.

Full context here:

Will Goldman Sachs prove greed is God?
The investment bank's cult of self-interest is on trial against the whole idea of civilisation – the collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even if we can


14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 25, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Varchild2008 (86.40) wrote:

If everyone had the same self-interest as Goldman Sachs then no one would be on Welfare as everyone would be super super rich!

We just need to learn to *mess* with foreigners...not other U.S. citizens.... let people from other countries take the hits and America will be ridiculously welfare with ZERO poor people and ZERO middle class people.... Upper Class only!

---Just a thought...

Report this comment
#2) On April 25, 2010 at 2:02 PM, AltData (32.46) wrote:

I have a strange feeling that the direction of America's future will be decided in this case. Along with the results of the current legislation of finance reform.

We are living in extraordinary historical times.

I also find it amusing how readings from religious passages can be twisted to fit anyone's agenda. That goes for the Bible, Koran, and Tora.

Beware of selffulfilling prophecies.

Report this comment
#3) On April 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

Imagine if a crook could make you lose your job, lose the ability to travel abroad, take $13,000, charge you with a victim's assistance fee when there is no victim, take your license for 6 months, and put you in jail for a month? Wow, that would be some crook.

That is what happens if you drink 2 beers and get pulled over on your way home, even if it is less than 2 miles away, even if you are sober, even if there is NO VICTIM.

Please, find me a criminal that could F@#k up my life to that degree, I need to know that there is a worse perpetrator than my local police dept., in conjunction with the local court system. (FORT COLLINS, COLORADO) 

Report this comment
#4) On April 25, 2010 at 2:35 PM, RonChapmanJr (29.68) wrote:

If you drink and drive, you deserve worse.

Report this comment
#5) On April 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

I seem to remember towards the end of Atlas shrugged, how they discovered the remains of an invention that did not require fuel, or a free energy device. Free energy, or utilization of any invention that would save the consumer money goes directly against the current paradigm, in fact, but not in advertisement. To make a long story short, free energy hurts parasites like banks, and helps the citizen, who can use his man hours (dollars) for something more useful than just getting himself to work.

It is my opinion that the author did not read Atlas shrugged from the right perspective(if at all), and allowing great minds to conquer ignorance is NOT what Goldman does. Greedy minds conquering the morals of great minds, and turning them into prostitutes- that is more on target. Goldman is just a large pimp, and those employees getting the bonuses are the prostitutes. Those who are depending on Goldman's girls to be clean are potentially in for a big surprise. Would Goldman even be on trial if there wasn't some kind of a 'play' going on here? With the market as overbought as it is, isn't it convenient that there is an investment bank scandal of potentially mammoth proportions, and at the same time that there is a political play for financial reform?

It is my opinion that Goldman is an example of what happens when somebody perverts the message of free enterprise to the degree that reaches the breaking point. You simply cannot make markets, and then turn around and bet on them! (well not for long) That is inside information! You cannot create a system that trades 70 percent of the volume of a market, automatically, with 97% success rate! It's like steroids in baseball, but way worse! The table is tilted to a ridiculous degree, and from a psychological, and profit standpoint, I can see why the bulls don't want to see fault in goldman, but it is this cheering for the overdog who gets where he is without concern for who he needs to trample that insinuates a desire to side with corruption, rather than work to tear it down. So, in a funny way, it is not the bears that stand to wreck the economy, it is the bulls who have allowed things to get this corrupt for their own good. They've allowed evil to prevail in order to make a few nickels. They'd rather be a flea on a monster, along for the ride, than be courageous and fight the monster. 

Report this comment
#6) On April 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

2 beers? If you support 'worse' for 2 beers, I support way worse for you. Just having that opinion is a way worse travesty of justice, and infringement on the well being of others. But if you have talked yourself into supporting ridiculous punishment for victimless crime, You are the sort of person who truly doesn't deserve to call, yourself an American, as I understand the definition. You would have made an excellent SS officer perhaps, or maybe a warden at a halfway house. 

We find criminals in society to appease these sadistic power hungry control freaks, when in fact it is the control freaks that need to be brought to justice. Most people just want to live their lives, and not bother anyone, but this invasive strain of subhuman trash, ubiquitous as it has become, and although it is about to peak, will soon be dead. The only question remains, how far from civilization must one wander to avoid the onslaught of rabid fascist legopeople with a paranoid agenda media-injected into their puny minds?  

Report this comment
#7) On April 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM, AltData (32.46) wrote:


To paraphrase Pogo (and Pogo lives!) "You have met the enemy and it's yuhself."

Report this comment
#8) On April 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM, wcaseym (40.01) wrote:

If you drink and drive, you deserve worse.


Well, ... an Essex, England man has been banned from driving for three years after he was caught behind the wheel of a pink toy Barbie car in a drunken state.  He was over the legal limit for blood-alcohol when he was pulled over near his home by a police patrol car.  He modified the toy Barbie car with his son for a school project.When police pulled him over, he was supposedly on his way to a friend’s house to show off-his modified Barbie-Mobile when he was arrested.

The tiny electric car runs on batteries and has a top speed of about 6 km/h.


Report this comment
#9) On April 25, 2010 at 3:58 PM, alexxlea (53.79) wrote:

Dead drivers and passengers don't need the drunk driver's bac to be high for them to be the cause of their deaths.

Report this comment
#10) On April 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

Blesto, In the context of the matter at hand, and after researching 'POGO' I am a little confused by that quote. Are you saying that my fear is all there is to overcome, or something else? 

WCaseym- In Fort Collins, you can try to avoid a DUI by riding your bike, but if they pull you over on your bike, and your drunk, it's every bit as much of a hassle and expense. You lose your drivers license, go to prison, get a felony- for riding your bike drunk. Sounds like a free country to me. These parasites (parole dept. and other facets)are under investigation right now for scumbaggery, and being a bunch of thieving, bubbling puddles of rat vomit. 

Report this comment
#11) On April 25, 2010 at 5:02 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

OK, Blesto, I think I get it. I could have avoided my DUI, and all the legal ramifications myself, I knew the risks, and because I am my own worst enemy, it eventually teaches me a lesson.  One problem:

I didn't get a DUI. I am infuriated for the sake of those who must suffer the heartless nature of being caught in the gears of the system. I despise the fear I feel when I see a police car on the road, and how everyone drives 5 miles an hour under the speed limit when there is a cop around. I despise the police sitting outside the bar, as if on a fishing trip, and how they apparently have no concern for those they put in that situation, and how if they pull over their friend, and he's drunk, they joke about it and tell them to go straight home. It is because to them, the friend is human, and everyone else is something else. A target. To have people of this character and quality driving around, armed, after passing a test to make certain that they are not very bright, is this really what the majority wants? Somehow, I doubt it. Funny how quick people change their minds once they have to deal with their kids going to court, getting picked up at jail, having to get an attorney, for something that usually has no victim! 

It is one of the very aspects of this societal structure that makes it insustainable. These people create nothing except strife, and usually it is for someone who cannot afford it, effectively increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. 

Report this comment
#12) On April 25, 2010 at 5:21 PM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

wah,wah,wah for the mad mothers. If I ever condone getting into a car while you are unable to safely drive, I will get my head checked. I'm talking about the 99.9% who weren't involved in an accident, and had their lives ruined because of a nest of baby rattlesnakes who have no concern for the potency of their venom. (Guess which lobby I'm refering to)

If something bad happens in life, you must deal with it. If you must screw up other people's lives to deal with it, you are just avoiding dealing with it. You are spreading your grief. Get over it. Don't annoy the world, and especially don't become the catalyst for an unjust policy. There are people out there just waiting for some Moms to get together and start whining about something, so that they can justify further intrusion into our lives.  

Furthermore, I feel harsh penalties for those who make mistakes should compensate for removing penalties for those who don't! If there's no victim... that's right! there's no crime! Why should thousands of dollars be given to the government because something might have happened? That seems a bit ridiculous. Even pre-emptive. The only one who doesn't think it is ridiculous is the county, and the angry mothers, who apparently, we should all live in fear of.

Report this comment
#13) On April 26, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Turtleread (63.21) wrote:

A buddy of mine drove home from a friend's house (3 miles), got lost because he was drunk and had mary-jane.  This was December 31 at 2:30 a.m.  Five years earlier he had done the same thing.  I told him to stand whereever he is and drive home in the morning.  Did he do that?  Nope.  Two more times in this state and permanant revocation of his driving license and they also take his truck.

Report this comment
#14) On April 26, 2010 at 3:37 PM, USNHR (29.90) wrote:

Dead drivers and passengers don't need the drunk driver's bac to be high for them to be the cause of their deaths.


Neither do text messengers while driving, or sleep deprived while driving, or someone doing 35 in a 25 residential zone, or 90 on a 70mph highway.

Yet the penalty for one of these is far higher than any of the others.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners