What Happens When You Film Cops In Sweden

[j706]

I think most cops despise lawyers for some of the totally stupid and asinine things they come up with. And they even do with a straight face! I am not anti lawyer. One of my best friends is a lawyer.

One of my favorite's is going to depositions. Making a defense attorney that is defending some worthless POS earn their money is a BLAST. Some of them have real short fuses.

 

[Serial Crusher]

That guy has to be a stripper, look at that hair

 

[Eddie]

I think most cops despise lawyers for some of the totally stupid and asinine things they come up with. And they even do with a straight face! I am not anti lawyer. One of my best friends is a lawyer.

One of my favorite's is going to depositions. Making a defense attorney that is defending some worthless POS earn their money is a BLAST. Some of them have real short fuses.

I always say that 99% of lawyers give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i think cops here should drive vans, lol. maybe they would be more happy?

 

[BE Mike]

Lawyers...don't get me started. Isn't the nation's capital full of them? How's that working out? As far as the video, well he was in full uniform with his cap, but he was wearing that para-military uniform that so many people here don't like. I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling about his demeanor. Some on here just like to poke the lion. Pretty lame to do it on the internet.

 

[downzero]

Making a defense attorney that is defending some worthless POS earn their money is a BLAST. Some of them have real short fuses.

And here I thought they were presumed innocent. They're accused of something, so they must be a, "worthless POS."

I'd probably have a short fuse with you, too if I thought you were hostile to the presumption of innocence.

 

[Que]

I bet he pulls a lot of American women there on vacation. That's probably the only reason he made the video. Women like a man who can dance.

 

[downzero]

First of all, anyone who truly TRUSTS anyone they don't have long term relationships with is naive.

If anyone actually believed this, it'd be pretty hard to find a lawyer. Fortunately, like all PROFESSIONS, the study and practice of law has ethical rules that have realistic expectations and consequences if those expectations are not met. There are plenty of famous lawyers that are no longer allowed or were never allowed to practice law. Just to name a few off the top of my head, F. Lee Bailey, former President Bill Clinton, Bernardine Dohrn (Bill Ayers' wife), and Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. While these may seem to be extreme examples, all of these people have attended law school, passed the bar exam, and are no longer allowed to practice.

I suspect that there are no more bad lawyers than there are doctors. About 5% of doctors create nearly all malpractice claims. And I further suspect it's much harder to lose one's medical license than law license, but I don't have any data to substantiate it one way or the other.

Police work, because it is not a profession, lacks any real, objective standards. Plenty of cops are still on the beat despite the fact that any reasonable person would have fired them in an instant a long time ago. Many, if not most police officers are also represented by unions. Why any public sector employee, especially one who carries a stick and a gun, is allowed union protection is beyond me, but the fact remains that even the people in charge of the cops on the street lack any real power to fire them. Considering the consequences to individuals who have had their rights violated by police officers are very high, I can't imagine why this is continually tolerated by their fellow officers or the citizens of this country.

Don't stand there and pretend that lawyers aren't behind more shady deals than ENRON executives.... they are, you just don't hear about it very often.

I don't even know how we'd define such a thing. I know that both accountants and lawyers both get a rough name for being involved in transactional work, but I think that is more based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their role in society rather than some sort of systemic ethical bankruptcy.

Also, just because the thousands of positive LEO interactions don't make the news, doesn't mean that LEO's as a rule are the abusive anti constitutionalists that you make them out to be.

The erosion of the Fourth Amendment that has occurred in the last 50 or so years is absolutely staggering. The deference to "officer safety" by the courts is also mostly unprecedented and unjustified. As much as conservatives hate things like Miranda and the exclusionary rule, these things could be eliminated tomorrow if LEOs weren't the 'abusive, anti-constitutionalists' that I make them out to be. There'd be nothing to even talk about on the issue if police actually had respect for the plain language of the Constitution's text. Confrontation exists only because people want to test the bounds as to what is acceptable.

Someone on here has a great sig (or at least they did). I apply this to all levels of force continuum in my personal life. If you come at me, you are the aggressor and I'm more than willing and very capable of responding to anyone attempting or threatening to harm or myself or my loved ones.

I guess the only question I have remaining after reading this (with which I agree), is that why should the standard for society evaluating your actions in this case be any different if you're wearing a badge?

It shouldn't, but we've been brainwashed into believing that this different standard should be applied because LEOs have a dangerous job, when in reality, the fact that they have a dangerous job makes it even more important society's vigilance assures that they do not abuse whatever authority is given to them.

Cases like the video from Maryland that was posted a few weeks ago are illustrative of my point. Man is speeding on his motorcycle and generally driving like a fool. Cops finally pull him over and what's the first thing that happens? Cop pulls his gun and points it at the motorist.

Perhaps I'm completely out of my mind, but there's no way in hell that the person on that motorcycle presented a lethal threat to that officer. In the society that I want to live in, pointing a gun at someone who doesn't have the means, intent, or ability to cause you serious injury or death is assault. Yet we're continually told that this is acceptable behavior by TV, the news media, etc., because it's for our own good and the cops are there to protect us.

This is absolute nonsense. I'm not even saying the guy shouldn't have gone to jail and had his motorcycle impounded for the way he was riding. He certainly should have. The way he rode was reckless and endangered the lives of the public, and I'm glad that he was busted and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find it absolutely disgusting that the police get a free pass for conduct that would be felonious if you or I did it. That is unacceptable.

The way to avoid excessive use of force incidents is to totally change the way in which police are allowed to interact with the public. It seems to me that police "use of force" is only reviewed when "force" results in some sort of harm to the individual. This is where we fall short. As far as I'm concerned, there's a loss of liberty anytime force is threatened. And as citizens of a free country, we shouldn't allow anyone to assault us (that is, to threaten force against us, even if it's not used) even if it is a government official.

I'm as capable of thinking critically about this as anyone else, but a world with a deference to government and force is simply not the kind of society in which I want to live. That is why I vote against politicians who favor this sort of deference. The presumption should always be on liberty and the citizen first.

 

[Benny]

I bet he pulls a lot of American women there on vacation. That's probably the only reason he made the video. Women like a man who can dance.

Wait, that was dancing?

 

[jsgolfman]

If anyone actually believed this, it'd be pretty hard to find a lawyer. Fortunately, like all PROFESSIONS, the study and practice of law has ethical rules that have realistic expectations and consequences if those expectations are not met. There are plenty of famous lawyers that are no longer allowed or were never allowed to practice law. Just to name a few off the top of my head, F. Lee Bailey, former President Bill Clinton, Bernardine Dohrn (Bill Ayers' wife), and Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. While these may seem to be extreme examples, all of these people have attended law school, passed the bar exam, and are no longer allowed to practice.

I suspect that there are no more bad lawyers than there are doctors. About 5% of doctors create nearly all malpractice claims. And I further suspect it's much harder to lose one's medical license than law license, but I don't have any data to substantiate it one way or the other.

Police work, because it is not a profession, lacks any real, objective standards. Plenty of cops are still on the beat despite the fact that any reasonable person would have fired them in an instant a long time ago. Many, if not most police officers are also represented by unions. Why any public sector employee, especially one who carries a stick and a gun, is allowed union protection is beyond me, but the fact remains that even the people in charge of the cops on the street lack any real power to fire them. Considering the consequences to individuals who have had their rights violated by police officers are very high, I can't imagine why this is continually tolerated by their fellow officers or the citizens of this country.



I don't even know how we'd define such a thing. I know that both accountants and lawyers both get a rough name for being involved in transactional work, but I think that is more based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their role in society rather than some sort of systemic ethical bankruptcy.



The erosion of the Fourth Amendment that has occurred in the last 50 or so years is absolutely staggering. The deference to "officer safety" by the courts is also mostly unprecedented and unjustified. As much as conservatives hate things like Miranda and the exclusionary rule, these things could be eliminated tomorrow if LEOs weren't the 'abusive, anti-constitutionalists' that I make them out to be. There'd be nothing to even talk about on the issue if police actually had respect for the plain language of the Constitution's text. Confrontation exists only because people want to test the bounds as to what is acceptable.



I guess the only question I have remaining after reading this (with which I agree), is that why should the standard for society evaluating your actions in this case be any different if you're wearing a badge?

It shouldn't, but we've been brainwashed into believing that this different standard should be applied because LEOs have a dangerous job, when in reality, the fact that they have a dangerous job makes it even more important society's vigilance assures that they do not abuse whatever authority is given to them.

Cases like the video from Maryland that was posted a few weeks ago are illustrative of my point. Man is speeding on his motorcycle and generally driving like a fool. Cops finally pull him over and what's the first thing that happens? Cop pulls his gun and points it at the motorist.

Perhaps I'm completely out of my mind, but there's no way in hell that the person on that motorcycle presented a lethal threat to that officer. In the society that I want to live in, pointing a gun at someone who doesn't have the means, intent, or ability to cause you serious injury or death is assault. Yet we're continually told that this is acceptable behavior by TV, the news media, etc., because it's for our own good and the cops are there to protect us.

This is absolute nonsense. I'm not even saying the guy shouldn't have gone to jail and had his motorcycle impounded for the way he was riding. He certainly should have. The way he rode was reckless and endangered the lives of the public, and I'm glad that he was busted and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find it absolutely disgusting that the police get a free pass for conduct that would be felonious if you or I did it. That is unacceptable.

The way to avoid excessive use of force incidents is to totally change the way in which police are allowed to interact with the public. It seems to me that police "use of force" is only reviewed when "force" results in some sort of harm to the individual. This is where we fall short. As far as I'm concerned, there's a loss of liberty anytime force is threatened. And as citizens of a free country, we shouldn't allow anyone to assault us (that is, to threaten force against us, even if it's not used) even if it is a government official.

I'm as capable of thinking critically about this as anyone else, but a world with a deference to government and force is simply not the kind of society in which I want to live. That is why I vote against politicians who favor this sort of deference. The presumption should always be on liberty and the citizen first.

I know that most won't read this link, but it's worth the click. If people can re-evaluate the way they think about justice and the subsequent application of said justice, they may find it an interesting read:

http://mises.org/books/societycoercion.pdf

 

[jsharmon7]

If you come at me, you are the aggressor and I'm more than willing and very capable of responding to anyone attempting or threatening to harm or myself or my loved ones.

I certainly hope for your sake that you're never involved in a self defense shooting because posts like this will come back to haunt you. "More than willing" in bold letters is a gift to a good attorney in civil court if you should have to use force against someone.

Oh, and that video was hilarious.

 

[03mustgt]

If anyone actually believed this, it'd be pretty hard to find a lawyer. Fortunately, like all PROFESSIONS, the study and practice of law has ethical rules that have realistic expectations and consequences if those expectations are not met. There are plenty of famous lawyers that are no longer allowed or were never allowed to practice law. Just to name a few off the top of my head, F. Lee Bailey, former President Bill Clinton, Bernardine Dohrn (Bill Ayers' wife), and Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. While these may seem to be extreme examples, all of these people have attended law school, passed the bar exam, and are no longer allowed to practice.

I suspect that there are no more bad lawyers than there are doctors. About 5% of doctors create nearly all malpractice claims. And I further suspect it's much harder to lose one's medical license than law license, but I don't have any data to substantiate it one way or the other.

Police work, because it is not a profession, lacks any real, objective standards. Plenty of cops are still on the beat despite the fact that any reasonable person would have fired them in an instant a long time ago. Many, if not most police officers are also represented by unions. Why any public sector employee, especially one who carries a stick and a gun, is allowed union protection is beyond me, but the fact remains that even the people in charge of the cops on the street lack any real power to fire them. Considering the consequences to individuals who have had their rights violated by police officers are very high, I can't imagine why this is continually tolerated by their fellow officers or the citizens of this country.



I don't even know how we'd define such a thing. I know that both accountants and lawyers both get a rough name for being involved in transactional work, but I think that is more based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their role in society rather than some sort of systemic ethical bankruptcy.



The erosion of the Fourth Amendment that has occurred in the last 50 or so years is absolutely staggering. The deference to "officer safety" by the courts is also mostly unprecedented and unjustified. As much as conservatives hate things like Miranda and the exclusionary rule, these things could be eliminated tomorrow if LEOs weren't the 'abusive, anti-constitutionalists' that I make them out to be. There'd be nothing to even talk about on the issue if police actually had respect for the plain language of the Constitution's text. Confrontation exists only because people want to test the bounds as to what is acceptable.



I guess the only question I have remaining after reading this (with which I agree), is that why should the standard for society evaluating your actions in this case be any different if you're wearing a badge?

It shouldn't, but we've been brainwashed into believing that this different standard should be applied because LEOs have a dangerous job, when in reality, the fact that they have a dangerous job makes it even more important society's vigilance assures that they do not abuse whatever authority is given to them.

Cases like the video from Maryland that was posted a few weeks ago are illustrative of my point. Man is speeding on his motorcycle and generally driving like a fool. Cops finally pull him over and what's the first thing that happens? Cop pulls his gun and points it at the motorist.

Perhaps I'm completely out of my mind, but there's no way in hell that the person on that motorcycle presented a lethal threat to that officer. In the society that I want to live in, pointing a gun at someone who doesn't have the means, intent, or ability to cause you serious injury or death is assault. Yet we're continually told that this is acceptable behavior by TV, the news media, etc., because it's for our own good and the cops are there to protect us.

This is absolute nonsense. I'm not even saying the guy shouldn't have gone to jail and had his motorcycle impounded for the way he was riding. He certainly should have. The way he rode was reckless and endangered the lives of the public, and I'm glad that he was busted and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find it absolutely disgusting that the police get a free pass for conduct that would be felonious if you or I did it. That is unacceptable.

The way to avoid excessive use of force incidents is to totally change the way in which police are allowed to interact with the public. It seems to me that police "use of force" is only reviewed when "force" results in some sort of harm to the individual. This is where we fall short. As far as I'm concerned, there's a loss of liberty anytime force is threatened. And as citizens of a free country, we shouldn't allow anyone to assault us (that is, to threaten force against us, even if it's not used) even if it is a government official.

I'm as capable of thinking critically about this as anyone else, but a world with a deference to government and force is simply not the kind of society in which I want to live. That is why I vote against politicians who favor this sort of deference. The presumption should always be on liberty and the citizen first.

 

[Benny]

I certainly hope for your sake that you're never involved in a self defense shooting because posts like this will come back to haunt you. "More than willing" in bold letters is a gift to a good attorney in civil court if you should have to use force against someone.

Oh, and that video was hilarious.

Hell, if you think that is bad, you aren't looking hard enough...That was a 1/10 on a "dumb things to say on a public forum" scale.

I remember one of the members here, who is currently enjoying a 2 week vacation, said if you shot his dog, he'd kill you and be standing over your body for when the cops got there and tell them you said "you're next."

I'm not saying the actions would be right or wrong, but I sure as hell wouldn't say that for everyone to read.

 

[IndySSD]

If anyone actually believed this, it'd be pretty hard to find a lawyer.

Just because you employ one, doesn't mean you need to TRUST them.

Fortunately, like all PROFESSIONS, the study and practice of law has ethical rules that have realistic expectations and consequences if those expectations are not met. There are plenty of famous lawyers that are no longer allowed or were never allowed to practice law. Just to name a few off the top of my head, F. Lee Bailey, former President Bill Clinton, Bernardine Dohrn (Bill Ayers' wife), and Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. While these may seem to be extreme examples, all of these people have attended law school, passed the bar exam, and are no longer allowed to practice.

Please explain how any of this has any relevance whatsoever to anything we're discussing?

Police work, because it is not a profession, lacks any real, objective standards. Plenty of cops are still on the beat despite the fact that any reasonable person would have fired them in an instant a long time ago. Many, if not most police officers are also represented by unions. Why any public sector employee, especially one who carries a stick and a gun, is allowed union protection is beyond me, but the fact remains that even the people in charge of the cops on the street lack any real power to fire them. Considering the consequences to individuals who have had their rights violated by police officers are very high, I can't imagine why this is continually tolerated by their fellow officers or the citizens of this country.

Did you forget the purple here? Police work is not a real profession? This statement almost completely invalidates anything you could possibly hope to convey in this paragraph.

I suspect that there are no more bad lawyers than there are doctors. About 5% of doctors create nearly all malpractice claims. And I further suspect it's much harder to lose one's medical license than law license, but I don't have any data to substantiate it one way or the other.


I don't even know how we'd define such a thing. I know that both accountants and lawyers both get a rough name for being involved in transactional work, but I think that is more based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their role in society rather than some sort of systemic ethical bankruptcy.

Well, since my wife was an accountant before our son was born who shared all of her departmental issues and I have several lawyer acquaintances who constantly bemoan their colleagues I can honestly say that both professions come by their reputations rightfully such that 95% of the accountants and lawyers cause a bad rap for the 5% that are actually dutiful whereas 5% of the police that are "Bad Cops" generate the bad rap that 95% of the police are forced to endure.

The erosion of the Fourth Amendment that has occurred in the last 50 or so years is absolutely staggering. The deference to "officer safety" by the courts is also mostly unprecedented and unjustified. As much as conservatives hate things like Miranda and the exclusionary rule, these things could be eliminated tomorrow if LEOs weren't the 'abusive, anti-constitutionalists' that I make them out to be. There'd be nothing to even talk about on the issue if police actually had respect for the plain language of the Constitution's text. Confrontation exists only because people want to test the bounds as to what is acceptable.

This part I agree with..... however not for the reasons you believe it to be true. I've seen first hand how many people will try to push police to anger just because police are held to a higher standard than average citizens usually.

Rarely would some 5'6" 125lb smart mouth talk trash to a 6'2" 225lb guy if they were both just patrons in a bar. Mostly because antagonist smart mouth knows he can get knocked the FLACK OUT for being an arse hat. However, put a uniform and a badge on the 6'2" 225lb guy turning him into JoeOfficer and smart arse #1 jocksize grows ten sizes because he knows that JUST TALKING isn't enough to justify an arse whooping from JoeOfficer

I guess the only question I have remaining after reading this (with which I agree), is that why should the standard for society evaluating your actions in this case be any different if you're wearing a badge?

It shouldn't, but we've been brainwashed into believing that this different standard should be applied because LEOs have a dangerous job, when in reality, the fact that they have a dangerous job makes it even more important society's vigilance assures that they do not abuse whatever authority is given to them.

See, I think differently. I think people have been brainwashed by the media that thrives on and sensationalizes any sort of dramatic activity to believe that police should somehow be held to a HIGHER standard than the average citizen. Personally I think every man should be held accountable for his words and actions.

IE: If I talk about screwing someone's wife or grab her bum, I should expect to get knocked the fack out.

However, due to today's pussification of society, this is merely grounds for a misdemeanor waste of courts time and money and would generally wind up with the Husband being prosecuted more so than the the offending culprit.

Cases like the video from Maryland that was posted a few weeks ago are illustrative of my point. Man is speeding on his motorcycle and generally driving like a fool. Cops finally pull him over and what's the first thing that happens? Cop pulls his gun and points it at the motorist.

What about the two police that were gunned down by the teenage son of a man being pulled over for his erratic driving? Why not talk about that?

Perhaps I'm completely out of my mind, but there's no way in hell that the person on that motorcycle presented a lethal threat to that officer. In the society that I want to live in, pointing a gun at someone who doesn't have the means, intent, or ability to cause you serious injury or death is assault. Yet we're continually told that this is acceptable behavior by TV, the news media, etc., because it's for our own good and the cops are there to protect us.

This is absolute nonsense. I'm not even saying the guy shouldn't have gone to jail and had his motorcycle impounded for the way he was riding. He certainly should have. The way he rode was reckless and endangered the lives of the public, and I'm glad that he was busted and I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't find it absolutely disgusting that the police get a free pass for conduct that would be felonious if you or I did it. That is unacceptable.

So do you think that this officer who never pointed his firearm should be fired? Don't be confused, I don't think he acted correctly but it's not like he held the motorcyclist at gunpoint while he waited for backup. I think this would be a short suspension without pay and a mandatory training completion at MOST. Personally I think it's worthy of a verbal correction from his supervisor.

The way to avoid excessive use of force incidents is to totally change the way in which police are allowed to interact with the public. It seems to me that police "use of force" is only reviewed when "force" results in some sort of harm to the individual. This is where we fall short. As far as I'm concerned, there's a loss of liberty anytime force is threatened. And as citizens of a free country, we shouldn't allow anyone to assault us (that is, to threaten force against us, even if it's not used) even if it is a government official.

The problem here is the difference between your definition of "excessive" and my definition of "excessive".

I believe police are forced to exert MORE self restraint when it comes to the use and continuum of force than what I would hold myself to. Why?

Obviously in the small towns around Indiana you probably have more of the self important pompous high school peed-ons who got the gun and badge for all the wrong reasons but I personally know quite a few LEO who do the job to make the places we live in safer for our families and I would trust them with my life more so than 99.999% of the general populace.

I'm as capable of thinking critically about this as anyone else, but a world with a deference to government and force is simply not the kind of society in which I want to live. That is why I vote against politicians who favor this sort of deference. The presumption should always be on liberty and the citizen first.

Now I believe this is a completely separate subject. I also consider myself a "constitutionalist" but as our founding fathers did, I believe that a cad deserves to be dealt with as such and heavy force was used much more widely back then than it is now.


I believe our primary differences are the fact that you appear to presume that no-one is out to harm anyone else while I believe that many people in our society today pose a threat to me or my loved ones in many different ways.

Here are a few examples of people being a threat to me or my loved ones that I observed within the last week.


The idiot woman today who was texting and driving across 3 lanes on 465 this morning on the commute into work.

The figity weasel I saw at the Greenwood Mall this weekend who was pulling a "Cane Sword" out by 6" from the sheath and replacing it over and over as he walked down the middle of the mall.

The azzhat today in Five Guys Burgers parking lot on the northside who thought that just because he was in a BMW that it was fine for him to drive on the wrong side of the road and nearly smash headlong into me after running the stop sign.


In my opinion, all of those idiots deserve a good hard punch in the nose followed by an explanation as to why they got said punch in the nose. If the penalty for being a dumbazz in public was getting a bloody nose and maybe a black eye or two it is my opinion that our society would be much more polite and diligent in monitoring their own behaviors.

 

[IndySSD]

I certainly hope for your sake that you're never involved in a self defense shooting because posts like this will come back to haunt you. "More than willing" in bold letters is a gift to a good attorney in civil court if you should have to use force against someone.

Oh, and that video was hilarious.

Hell, if you think that is bad, you aren't looking hard enough...That was a 1/10 on a "dumb things to say on a public forum" scale.

I remember one of the members here, who is currently enjoying a 2 week vacation, said if you shot his dog, he'd kill you and be standing over your body for when the cops got there and tell them you said "you're next."

I'm not saying the actions would be right or wrong, but I sure as hell wouldn't say that for everyone to read.

To be frank, being more than willing to defend oneself is a HUGE rarity in today's society that was the norm and to be expected when this country was founded.

We have fallen victim to PC pussification and become reliant on the government to protect us from ourselves as a society simply because it is easier for us to allow someone else to take on the responsibility of our safety.

That fact makes me sick. The fact that I take the responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones makes you think I'm a target for a civil suit is proof positive that our society has all but abandoned any semblance of the self reliance attitude that this country was built upon.

It literally makes me feel like someone punched me in the gut when I think about the complete lack of self reliance in American society today.


Hows that for some bold conversation.


Oh, and dancing police are for those technotripping euro's.... we don't need that here IMO.

 

[BE Mike]

Sorry, I dozed off (it comes with age). Has anyone decided what the definition of is, is?

 

[jsharmon7]

To be frank, being more than willing to defend oneself is a HUGE rarity in today's society that was the norm and to be expected when this country was founded.

We have fallen victim to PC pussification and become reliant on the government to protect us from ourselves as a society simply because it is easier for us to allow someone else to take on the responsibility of our safety.

That fact makes me sick. The fact that I take the responsibility for the safety of myself and my loved ones makes you think I'm a target for a civil suit is proof positive that our society has all but abandoned any semblance of the self reliance attitude that this country was built upon.

It literally makes me feel like someone punched me in the gut when I think about the complete lack of self reliance in American society today.


Hows that for some bold conversation.

Wishing things were a certain way doesn't make them so. Our society has become this monster and we have to deal with it, good or bad. I stand by what I said.

 

[IndySSD]

Wishing things were a certain way doesn't make them so. Our society has become this monster and we have to deal with it, good or bad. I stand by what I said.

I agree that wishing solves nothing, but until every citizen decides to live as they should, no change can be affected. I vote and contribute what I can to these beliefs as well as live them and I expect no less from my fellow citizens.

 

[printcraft]

Just finished a Toberlone! GREAT!

+1 for Sweden.

 

[IndySSD]

Just finished a Toberlone! GREAT!

+1 for Sweden.

You do know that package says Product of Switzerland right?