Yet another reason the FBI needs to be abolished and its personnel systematically investigated and prosecuted:
We’re here to recover the device you found on your vehicle. It’s federal property. It’s an expensive piece, and we need it right now. …
We’re going to make this much more difficult for you if you don’t cooperate. …
You don’t need to call your lawyer.
The victim probably should have gotten legal advice before relinquishing the device (evidence!), but given the pressure he was under it’s hard to blame him.
Found a video you might like Roderick, although I’m not sure the source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8
Still curious how seeing corporatism as “systematic and all-pervasive” is consistent with a Statocracy-Mostly-Dominant position.
How can you see corporatism as systematic and all-pervasive and not be committed to at least a Neither-Dominant position if not a Plutocracy-Dominant position?
Corporatism = statocrat/plutocrat alliance.
So to say that corporatism is all-pervasive is to say that the statocrat/plutocrat alliance is all-pervasive.
That by itself says nothing about which if either is the dominant partner.
But if the alliance itself is systematic and all pervasive, how does it hold more descriptive power to point to one side as dominant? Doesn’t the concept ‘alliance’ imply a lack of dominance? Alliance suggests common purpose. How does common purpose fit into a dominance framework?