PDA

View Full Version : Police State America


Taco John
04-04-2008, 11:12 AM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-taU9d26wT4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-taU9d26wT4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Donger
04-04-2008, 11:31 AM
Maybe it's just me, but if cops legally came into my home, I wouldn't choose to pick up a gun, loaded or not.

HonestChieffan
04-04-2008, 11:36 AM
Thats because you are not a criminal

Pitt Gorilla
04-04-2008, 11:54 AM
Thats because you are not a criminalExactly. Only criminals bear arms, especially in their homes.

Logical
04-04-2008, 11:59 AM
This is just pathetic, I am thankful the NRA exists, I am sure they helped these people get redress against the government.

Radar Chief
04-04-2008, 12:08 PM
This is just pathetic, I am thankful the NRA exists, I am sure they helped these people get redress against the government.

Agreed, but it shouldn’t have been needed.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 01:09 PM
It astounds me that they can go rounding up guns like this in America.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2008, 01:13 PM
I'm not sure where I read it but in Massachusetts the police can come to a home without a warrant and take folks' guns. Iirc, there's a protest on it.

Iowanian
04-04-2008, 01:21 PM
thats perplexing.

I assume this is after Katrina, in the mess that followed? During that same time, weren't some dumbasses firing on helicopters, police along with the murdering and looting?

I can understand why the cops were edgy, but this appears pretty unconstitutional and I can't say that I blame those people for being pissed off.

BIG_DADDY
04-04-2008, 01:22 PM
Welcome to the new America.

SBK
04-04-2008, 01:26 PM
Welcome to the new America.

The USKKKA. :D

BIG_DADDY
04-04-2008, 01:30 PM
I can understand why they would go after law abiding citizens and old ladies. Criminal would actually be dangerous.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

StcChief
04-04-2008, 01:44 PM
The disarming of Americans one by one.

Chiefnj2
04-04-2008, 01:52 PM
The police departments did what they wanted. IIRC, there was one bridge that was open and could have allowed evacuees (gretna??) out, but the police department of the town on the other side set up a roadblock on the bridge and fired their weapons in the air as people came up to the bridge. They didn't allow anyone across - sick, kids, pregnant, it didn't matter.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 01:52 PM
Maybe it's just me, but if cops legally came into my home, I wouldn't choose to pick up a gun, loaded or not.


Typical Donger... The first reaction is always to rationalize the actions of big government.

Donger
04-04-2008, 01:57 PM
Typical Donger... The first reaction is always to rationalize the actions of big government.

Huh? I stated that it's not very bright to hold a firearm when police are around. How is that rationalizing the actions of big government?

BIG_DADDY
04-04-2008, 02:00 PM
Huh? I stated that it's not very bright to hold a firearm when police are around. How is that rationalizing the actions of big government?

It's justifying the actions of the police. Out of all the outrage you could have shown after watching that you chose to go after the old lady.

Donger
04-04-2008, 02:04 PM
It's justifying the actions of the police. Out of all the outrage you could have shown after watching that you chose to go after the old lady.

I don't like old ladies. They should all be killed.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:01 PM
Huh? I stated that it's not very bright to hold a firearm when police are around. How is that rationalizing the actions of big government?

It's just the first thing you always gravitate to: what did the citizen do wrong. You never asked the question: why is government going door to door collecting guns from law abiding citizens? You immediately and consistently always go after the citizen in defense of the state.

More amusing is the fact that you're at all suprised at this... "Huh?" I had figured that as often as you do it, you must have some sort of principle behind it. Apparently it's just a knee jerk reaction.

You, with regular consistency, always protect the actions of the state first... and then maybe get around to the constitutional questions surrounding what happened to the citizen, and when you do that, it's just an afterthought not really worth spending any time or emotion on...

...but boy, you'll defend the state all day long.

MOhillbilly
04-04-2008, 03:05 PM
this isnt news the goverment has been stealing peoples personal property for years.

Donger
04-04-2008, 03:28 PM
It's just the first thing you always gravitate to: what did the citizen do wrong. You never asked the question: why is government going door to door collecting guns from law abiding citizens? You immediately and consistently always go after the citizen in defense of the state.

More amusing is the fact that you're at all suprised at this... "Huh?" I had figured that as often as you do it, you must have some sort of principle behind it. Apparently it's just a knee jerk reaction.

You, with regular consistency, always protect the actions of the state first... and then maybe get around to the constitutional questions surrounding what happened to the citizen, and when you do that, it's just an afterthought not really worth spending any time or emotion on...

...but boy, you'll defend the state all day long.

IIRC, Nagin declared martial law in the city. Therefore, the entire premise of your thread is moot. Therefore, I focused on other things, like this woman foolishly holding a firearm when police are in her house.

No offense, but you seem to have an affinity for knee-jerk emotionalism, even when it is not warranted.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:31 PM
Emotionalism? Is that what state robots refer to patriotism these days?

Donger
04-04-2008, 03:32 PM
Emotionalism? Is that what state robots refer to patriotism these days?

I don't know. But considering that you chose the title for the thread, what was the basis for it, other than an emotional one?

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:32 PM
I like that though...

"Oh, well, a government official declared martial law, so it's all right and just that people have their guns confiscated. Quit being so emotional!"

Donger
04-04-2008, 03:34 PM
I like that though...

"Oh, well, a government official declared martial law, so it's all right and just that people have their guns confiscated. Quit being so emotional!"

Considering what was going on in New Orleans after Katrina, it was probably the best decision that could have been made. It was lifted once order was restored, no?

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:34 PM
I don't know. But considering that you chose the title for the thread, what was the basis for it, other than an emotional one?



The basis was that we are turning into a police state.

Everyone in this forum has been expecting to see a day when the government would be forced to declare martial law due to a terrorist attack. They've been preparing us for such a day for a long time. We just got an early peek at what that means thanks to Katrina.

It means we get our guns taken away from us.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:35 PM
Considering what was going on in New Orleans after Katrina, it was probably the best decision that could have been made. It was lifted once order was restored, no?


It was the best decision for the looters, to be sure. Not the property owners though. It was a terrible decision for them.

Donger
04-04-2008, 03:35 PM
The basis was that we are turning into a police state.

Everyone in this forum has been expecting to see a day when the government would be forced to declare martial law due to a terrorist attack. They've been preparing us for such a day for a long time. We just got an early peek at what that means thanks to Katrina.

It means we get our guns taken away from us.

Please don't lump me in with the conspiratorial "everyone." I'd like to remain free when "the government" rounds the rest of you people up.

Thanks.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:38 PM
Please don't lump me in with the conspiratorial "everyone." I'd like to remain free when "the government" rounds the rest of you people up.

Thanks.


Conspiratorial? There's nothing conspiratorial about it. Everybody knows, and has known for some time that if there were another terrorist attack, martial law isn't far behind. The government has been talking about this possibility since 9/11 happened.

You're an odd duck. You worship at the altar of government, are even brash about it, but are confused when people point it out.

Pitt Gorilla
04-04-2008, 03:39 PM
I'm honestly very ignorant of martial law. What parts of the Constitution get suspended (aside from the second amendment)?

Donger
04-04-2008, 03:40 PM
Conspiratorial? There's nothing conspiratorial about it. Everybody knows, and has known for some time that if there were another terrorist attack, martial law isn't far behind. The government has been talking about this possibility since 9/11 happened.

You're an odd duck. You worship at the altar of government, are even brash about it, but are confused when people point it out.

Maybe you could provide me with a link to "the government" talking about it?

BucEyedPea
04-04-2008, 03:42 PM
It's just the first thing you always gravitate to: what did the citizen do wrong. You never asked the question: why is government going door to door collecting guns from law abiding citizens? You immediately and consistently always go after the citizen in defense of the state.

He's from a country built on empire. Tories go home.:p

Taco John
04-04-2008, 03:54 PM
Maybe you could provide me with a link to "the government" talking about it?



Section 1615 makes authorizations for the planning of martial law

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/BILLREPT/FY08/HASC/FY08_HASC_Def_Auth_Bill_1585.pdf

Donger
04-04-2008, 03:58 PM
Section 1615 makes authorizations for the planning of martial law

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/BILLREPT/FY08/HASC/FY08_HASC_Def_Auth_Bill_1585.pdf

It provides for military support to civilian authorities, support which only our military can provide.

That's "planning for martial law," IYO?

Donger
04-04-2008, 04:00 PM
Anyway, TJ, even if there were a massive attack, even with WMDs, there probably would be some form of martial law declared. It would, of course, be temporary however.

You have a problem with a hypothetical, temporary declaration of martial law in the event of a terrorist attack?

Taco John
04-04-2008, 04:06 PM
It provides for military support to civilian authorities, support which only our military can provide.

That's "planning for martial law," IYO?


In my opinion?

What does my opinion have anything to do with legislation which provides the groundwork for martial law? There's no opinion needed. It's there in black and white. You said it yourself: it provides for military support to civilian authorities - support which only our military can provide.

Oh, I see. You think that the military will answer to these civilian authorities, right, and not to the commander in chief. :thumb:

Donger
04-04-2008, 04:11 PM
In my opinion?

What does my opinion have anything to do with legislation which provides the groundwork for martial law? There's no opinion needed. It's there in black and white. You said it yourself: it provides for military support to civilian authorities - support which only our military can provide.

Oh, I see. You think that the military will answer to these civilian authorities, right, and not to the commander in chief. :thumb:

The POTUS is a civilian.

And, you didn't answer my question.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 04:14 PM
And, you didn't answer my question.


That's because it wasn't a valid question.

It's like slapping an all beef patty in between two pieces of bread, and laughing and saying "in you're opinion I'm making a hamburger!? HA! It's a beef sandwich you fool!"

You're damn straight I didn't answer your goofy question.

Donger
04-04-2008, 04:15 PM
That's because it wasn't a valid question.

It's like slapping an all beef patty in between two pieces of bread, and laughing and saying "in you're opinion I'm making a hamburger!? HA! It's a beef sandwich you fool!"

You're damn straight I didn't answer your goofy question.

I see. You don't like hypothetical questions? They are "goofy"?

BIG_DADDY
04-04-2008, 04:20 PM
I see. You don't like hypothetical questions? They are "goofy"?

Hypothetically knowing what we know now I wish she had filled their pansy asses full of lead. This is why old ladies need :bang: or at least a real dog.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 04:33 PM
I see. You don't like hypothetical questions? They are "goofy"?

There, you did it again. Hypothetical question? What hypothetical question did you pose?

Donger
04-04-2008, 04:34 PM
There, you did it again. Hypothetical question? What hypothetical question did you pose?

You have a problem with a hypothetical, temporary declaration of martial law in the event of a terrorist attack?

Taco John
04-04-2008, 05:18 PM
You have a problem with a hypothetical, temporary declaration of martial law in the event of a terrorist attack?


Well then... We've evolved from 'you call *THAT* martial law', to 'don't you think that it's a good idea?'

The answer is that I absolutely have a problem with martial law, period. Military should never be used as a police force either abroad or at home. Military has one job: kill, win, and come home (in cases where they are abroad).

I have a better solution than martial law: an armed population. Allow people their constitutional right to guns and let them protect themselves, their property, and their neighbors from aggressors.

Donger
04-04-2008, 05:24 PM
Well then... We've evolved from 'you call *THAT* martial law', to 'don't you think that it's a good idea?'

The answer is that I absolutely have a problem with martial law, period. Military should never be used as a police force either abroad or at home. Military has one job: kill, win, and come home (in cases where they are abroad).

I have a better solution than martial law: an armed population. Allow people their constitutional right to guns and let them protect themselves, their property, and their neighbors from aggressors.

You are familiar with Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, yes? If so, does the suspension of habeas corpus, IYO, equate to "martial law"?

Ari Chi3fs
04-04-2008, 05:31 PM
This country has gone to hell. Bush has really owned us these last 8 years. ****ing sucks.

SBK
04-04-2008, 05:35 PM
If the citizens of the US had a revolt in which they were forced to give up their guns to the military, do you think the soldiers would side with the gov't or with it's citizens?

Taco John
04-04-2008, 05:35 PM
You are familiar with Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, yes? If so, does the suspension of habeas corpus, IYO, equate to "martial law"?

Who is doing the suspension? Is this a congressional act, or a unilateral directive from the executive?

SBK
04-04-2008, 05:35 PM
This country has gone to hell. Bush has really owned us these last 8 years. ****ing sucks.

New Orleans isn't run by George Bush.....

Donger
04-04-2008, 06:28 PM
Who is doing the suspension? Is this a congressional act, or a unilateral directive from the executive?

Either.

keg in kc
04-04-2008, 06:47 PM
New Orleans isn't run by George Bush.....At least it has that much going for it.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 09:32 PM
Either.

No on both counts. The suspension of Habeus Corpus is not the same as martial law. Martial law is military acting as law enforcement. Suspending the Great Writ is supsending due process. That can happen with or without martial law. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

SBK
04-04-2008, 09:47 PM
At least it has that much going for it.

I wouldn't consider Ray Nagin an upgrade, but rep for the funny comment!

Logical
04-04-2008, 09:50 PM
The USKKKA. :DROFL

Logical
04-04-2008, 10:11 PM
I'm honestly very ignorant of martial law. What parts of the Constitution get suspended (aside from the second amendment)?Unfortunately I believe all of them.:eek:

Logical
04-04-2008, 10:24 PM
Anyway, TJ, even if there were a massive attack, even with WMDs, there probably would be some form of martial law declared. It would, of course, be temporary however.

You have a problem with a hypothetical, temporary declaration of martial law in the event of a terrorist attack?
I guess I am not sure how I would answer your question, because once martial law is declared there is no guarantees we will return to our present form of government, in fact this is the easiest scenario to setup a dictatorship in the US.

Taco John
04-04-2008, 10:27 PM
I guess I am not sure how I would answer your question, because once martial law is declared there is no guarantees we will return to our present form of government, in fact this is the easiest scenario to setup a dictatorship in the US.


You have to understand that Donger worships government. Why would government betray such a loyal subject? In his mind, government is restrained and only uses force where necessary - and where there is abuse, it doesn't matter to him because it's not happening to him: he is a loyal and obedient subject.

Donger never gets outraged at government abuses of other people because other people don't matter. If they were obedient subjects too, they wouldn't have any problems.

stevieray
04-04-2008, 10:41 PM
Military should never be used as a police force either abroad or at home. Military has one job: kill, win, and come home (in cases where they are abroad).



"...all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Count Zarth
04-04-2008, 10:46 PM
Tell us again how the draft will be re-instituted, Taco.

Adept Havelock
04-04-2008, 10:54 PM
"...all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.

:harumph:

stevieray
04-04-2008, 11:03 PM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



:harumph:


I don't see the relevance to my statement. I'm not talking about the second amendment.

Adept Havelock
04-04-2008, 11:06 PM
I don't see the relevance to my statement. I'm not talking about the second amendment.

As it directly relates to the OP, which led to the discussion of the idea of martial law (and the apparent blithe attitude some seem to have towards it), I find it relevant. :shrug:

Logical
04-04-2008, 11:22 PM
I don't see the relevance to my statement. I'm not talking about the second amendment.I am afraid I don't see the relevance of your statement either.

stevieray
04-04-2008, 11:25 PM
I am afraid I don't see the relevance of your statement either.


It's part of the oath that every service member takes..the National Guard has been and will continue to be used as a police force when neccessary

irishjayhawk
04-04-2008, 11:36 PM
It's part of the oath that every service member takes..the National Guard has been and will continue to be used as a police force when neccessary

SUBMIT OR ELSE!

stevieray
04-04-2008, 11:40 PM
SUBMIT OR ELSE!

do you have a job?

Logical
04-04-2008, 11:53 PM
It's part of the oath that every service member takes..the National Guard has been and will continue to be used as a police force when neccessary
Does not make it a good thing and could lead to the Police State TJ mentions in his title.

stevieray
04-05-2008, 12:01 AM
Does not make it a good thing and could lead to the Police State TJ mentions in his title.

BS, Jim..a Govenor or Mayor is not going to lose control of his State or City, whether it be natural disaster, rioting, or striking workers or rebelling prisoners.

It absolutley makes it a good thing. You've been paying for it and protected by it your whole life.

Liberty isn't doing whatever you want, it's doing what you ought to do.

Logical
04-05-2008, 12:06 AM
BS, Jim..a Govenor or Mayor is not going to lose control of his State or City, whether it be natural disaster, rioting, or striking workers or rebelling prisoners.

It absolutley makes it a good thing. You've been paying for it and protected by it your whole life.

Liberty isn't doing whatever you want, it's doing what you ought to do.Wow we are resorting to sloganeering now?

Once a federal Martial Law is declared all rights and Constitutional Protections including the bicameral legislature lose their grip on their part of our government. All power is suddenly in the control of the Executive branch. This is how a dictatorship can be born.

Taco John
04-05-2008, 12:24 AM
Tell us again how the draft will be re-instituted, Taco.



I'll tell you exactly how it will happen.

The Democrats will introduce a bill (already have) being cute, and trying to make a political point... And then some sort of national crisis will arrive, and your dumb ass will be shipped off to Iran to peel potatoes and blow soldiers.

Taco John
04-05-2008, 12:25 AM
"...all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

We've got plenty of those. Too bad we don't hang these days.

There's just something psycological about hanging. We'd have a lot less corporate crime if Bush's buddy, Ken Lay had been hung at the opening bell one morning.

irishjayhawk
04-05-2008, 12:36 AM
Wow we are resorting to sloganeering now?

Once a federal Marshal Law is declared all rights and Constitutional Protections including the bicameral legislature lose their grip on their part of our government. All power is suddenly in the control of the Executive branch. This is how a dictatorship can be born.

Also add in doubtful, naive and stupid people who don't understand how this can happen and it makes it that much easier.

Taco John
04-05-2008, 01:02 AM
Liberty isn't doing whatever you want, it's doing what you ought to do.



Just to be clear, Liberty is doing whatever you want to do, within parameters that don't infringe on the equal rights of others. Liberty has nothing to do with what you "ought" to do. That's "duty."

Mr. Kotter
04-05-2008, 01:06 AM
Rrrrooooccckkkkk Ccccchhhhaallllllllkkkkkk, Jjjjjjjaaaayyyyyhhhhhawwwwkkkk....
KKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkkUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

RRrooocckk Ccchhaalllllkkk, Jjjaayhhhawkkk....
KKKKKkkkkkkkUUUUuuuuuuuuu.....

RRrockk Ccchhlllkkk, Jjayhawkk....
KKKkkk-UUuuuuuuu.....

RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!

ROCKCHALK JAYHAWK, KKK-UUUU!!!



Go Jayhawks!

:KU:

stevieray
04-05-2008, 06:36 AM
Just to be clear, Liberty is doing whatever you want to do, within parameters that don't infringe on the equal rights of others. Liberty has nothing to do with what you "ought" to do. That's "duty."


hmm..not infringing on the rights of others...sounds like something I ought to do....:shrug:

Donger
04-05-2008, 07:33 AM
No on both counts. The suspension of Habeus Corpus is not the same as martial law. Martial law is military acting as law enforcement. Suspending the Great Writ is supsending due process. That can happen with or without martial law. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Thank you.

Donger
04-05-2008, 07:36 AM
I guess I am not sure how I would answer your question, because once martial law is declared there is no guarantees we will return to our present form of government, in fact this is the easiest scenario to setup a dictatorship in the US.

There is no guarantee that it wouldn't return, either. However, I do agree that it would be a troubling event.

That being said, I don't subscribe to the idea that there are some shadowy people just waiting in the wings, patiently biding their time until they can declare a dictatorship.

Donger
04-05-2008, 07:37 AM
You have to understand that Donger worships government. Why would government betray such a loyal subject? In his mind, government is restrained and only uses force where necessary - and where there is abuse, it doesn't matter to him because it's not happening to him: he is a loyal and obedient subject.

Donger never gets outraged at government abuses of other people because other people don't matter. If they were obedient subjects too, they wouldn't have any problems.

Heh. You couldn't be more inaccurate, which isn't surprising.

mlyonsd
04-05-2008, 07:38 AM
Rrrrooooccckkkkk Ccccchhhhaallllllllkkkkkk, Jjjjjjjaaaayyyyyhhhhhawwwwkkkk....
KKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkkUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

RRrooocckk Ccchhaalllllkkk, Jjjaayhhhawkkk....
KKKKKkkkkkkkUUUUuuuuuuuuu.....

RRrockk Ccchhlllkkk, Jjayhawkk....
KKKkkk-UUuuuuuuu.....

RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!

ROCKCHALK JAYHAWK, KKK-UUUU!!!



Go Jayhawks!

:KU:

Ok that's it. I'm rooting for North Carolina.

banyon
04-05-2008, 09:41 AM
I'm not sure where I read it but in Massachusetts the police can come to a home without a warrant and take folks' guns. Iirc, there's a protest on it.

Sounds credible, we'll just take your word for it.

TIME TO PANIC EVERYONE!!!

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-05-2008, 10:00 AM
The "enemies foreign and domestic" line always reminds me of the scene in The Rock when Michael Biehn's Seal Team gets wiped out.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2008, 12:06 PM
If the citizens of the US had a revolt in which they were forced to give up their guns to the military, do you think the soldiers would side with the gov't or with it's citizens?
So long as our military is made up of US citizens I would feel safer. This is one reason why I don't like the idea of using illegal immigrants or foreigners to fight in our military like some here have advocated—even so called conservatives and a self-proclaimed libertarian.

However, I say I'd feel safer with a military made up of civilians with a caveat: the govt can false report or demonize a group to make them kill whereby they think they are making us safe. So that's an exception. Afterall demonization of the other is the way govt stirs up war fever among it's own citizens. In a way, I think a citizen militia is more vital to the security of a free state over a massive standing army.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2008, 12:08 PM
New Orleans isn't run by George Bush.....

I believe he suspended posse comitatus though.

BucEyedPea
04-05-2008, 12:09 PM
The POTUS is a civilian.

And, you didn't answer my question.
Your questions are more rhetorical. Or they seem that way to me.

Logical
04-05-2008, 12:13 PM
There is no guarantee that it wouldn't return, either. However, I do agree that it would be a troubling event.

That being said, I don't subscribe to the idea that there are some shadowy people just waiting in the wings, patiently biding their time until they can declare a dictatorship.

Meet Dick Chaney

Count Zarth
04-05-2008, 12:13 PM
I'll tell you exactly how it will happen.

The Democrats will introduce a bill (already have) being cute, and trying to make a political point... And then some sort of national crisis will arrive, and your dumb ass will be shipped off to Iran to peel potatoes and blow soldiers.

Well, at least you are consistent in your beliefs...far-fetched as they may be.

For the record, if the draft were instituted, I'd take a trip to Canada.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-05-2008, 12:14 PM
Chuck Rangel does not = "The Democrats" writ large, FWIW.

Count Zarth
04-05-2008, 12:20 PM
Also, for the record, let it be known that Taco thought we would see a draft four years ago...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1930970&postcount=11

Personally, I think a draft is inevitable whether we go with Bush or Kerry...

Taco John
04-05-2008, 03:53 PM
Heh. You couldn't be more inaccurate, which isn't surprising.


I'd love for you to someday demonstrate evidence that proves my charictarization of you as inaccurate. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Taco John
04-05-2008, 03:55 PM
Well, at least you are consistent in your beliefs...far-fetched as they may be.


Far fetched my ass... I can't help it if you're a brainwashed ignoramus. We have a presidential candidate right now that wants to institute a peace time draft. (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.mccain.html)

vailpass
04-05-2008, 04:06 PM
Well, at least you are consistent in your beliefs...far-fetched as they may be.

For the record, if the draft were instituted, I'd take a trip to Canada.

LOL at all the ill-informed cowards who think they will be offered refuge in Canada if they try to hide there after turning traitor in the US.

Bowser
04-05-2008, 04:17 PM
LOL at all the ill-informed cowards who think they will be offered refuge in Canada if they try to hide there after turning traitor in the US.

As long as he ends up in a Molson factory to help pump out more Molson, I'm good with it.

banyon
04-05-2008, 04:25 PM
LOL at all the ill-informed coward who thinks [he] will be offered refuge in Canada if [he]tr[ies] to hide there after turning traitor in the US.

FYP.

irishjayhawk
04-05-2008, 04:54 PM
LOL at all the ill-informed cowards who think they will be offered refuge in Canada if they try to hide there after turning traitor in the US.

Not to lend any credibility to one side or the other but Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried's main message is that the coward is the one who doesn't walk across the border.

Food for thought.

vailpass
04-05-2008, 06:53 PM
Not to lend any credibility to one side or the other but Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried's main message is that the coward is the one who doesn't walk across the border.

Food for thought.

Tim O'Brien offered to suck my cock once hoping to gain something from my protein by some sort of twisted osmotic process.
Of course I had to turn him down.

CHIEF4EVER
04-05-2008, 07:15 PM
I don't see the relevance to my statement. I'm not talking about the second amendment.

This was the relevant quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.

In the case of martial law being instituted and not removed, an armed citenzry has the capacity to remove that condition.

penchief
04-05-2008, 07:18 PM
Meet Dick Chaney

Awesome. You actually get it.

penchief
04-05-2008, 07:21 PM
As long as he ends up in a Molson factory to help pump out more Molson, I'm good with it.

Who is Tim O'brien? Did he invent Molson's beer. If so, he's a genius because I drink it all the time. But if he's a right-wing reactionary, he can kiss my ever-loving liberal ass because I can switch to LeBatt's tomorrow.

SBK
04-05-2008, 10:17 PM
Awesome. You actually get it.

One would think this would be a wake up call for the one formerly known as Logical.....:evil:

stevieray
04-05-2008, 11:38 PM
This was the relevant quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed.

In the case of martial law being instituted and not removed, an armed citenzry has the capacity to remove that condition.

not relevant to my point of discussion.

Logical
04-06-2008, 12:51 AM
One would think this would be a wake up call for the one formerly known as Logical.....:evil:
Oh no even in 2004 when I was pushing hard to re-elect Monkey Boy I saw the inherent evil in Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld

ClevelandBronco
04-06-2008, 01:56 AM
So long as our military is made up of US citizens I would feel safer. This is one reason why I don't like the idea of using illegal immigrants or foreigners to fight in our military like some here have advocated—even so called conservatives and a self-proclaimed libertarian.

However, I say I'd feel safer with a military made up of civilians with a caveat: the govt can false report or demonize a group to make them kill whereby they think they are making us safe. So that's an exception. Afterall demonization of the other is the way govt stirs up war fever among it's own citizens. In a way, I think a citizen militia is more vital to the security of a free state over a massive standing army.

Citizen soldiers have fired upon and killed our fellow citizens on several occasions during our history. (I'd be happy to recount others, but Kent State stands out personally in my mind, since my sister was there. Fortunately, she's still alive. Four others aren't.)

As to your second point, if you think that citizens with small arms stand a real chance against a "massive standing army," (with the kinds of weapons that defeated Saddam in quick order) you're kidding yourself. My neighbor and I don't have that kind of fire power.

If you have a connection that would allow us to procure a decent Stealth fighter, we might be interested.

We're open to discussions about refurbished attack helicopters as well.

CHIEF4EVER
04-06-2008, 04:29 AM
As to your second point, if you think that citizens with small arms stand a real chance against a "massive standing army," (with the kinds of weapons that defeated Saddam in quick order) you're kidding yourself. My neighbor and I don't have that kind of fire power.

I'm pretty sure the Viet Cong and the Afghan tribesmen would disagree.

So would General Cornwallis................

Donger
04-06-2008, 06:50 AM
I'd love for you to someday demonstrate evidence that proves my charictarization of you as inaccurate. I'm not going to hold my breath.

You said that I worship government. That is inaccurate. In fact, for the most part, I despise government.

banyon
04-06-2008, 09:59 AM
You said that I worship government. That is inaccurate. In fact, for the most part, I despise government.

This is true, just look up one of the times I've argued with him about health care. Oh, wait, we're both socialsts! It's all so confusing.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-06-2008, 10:17 AM
This is true, just look up one of the times I've argued with him about health care. Oh, wait, we're both socialsts! It's all so confusing.

TJ is a bit off, Donger worships the power quo.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 11:04 AM
Citizen soldiers have fired upon and killed our fellow citizens on several occasions during our history. (I'd be happy to recount others, but Kent State stands out personally in my mind, since my sister was there. Fortunately, she's still alive. Four others aren't.)
Did you miss my caveat? I said there were exceptions. Or maybe the average military person really does hold all their critical thinking in suspended animation like Major General Smedley D. Butler (USMC Retired) claimed.

As to your second point, if you think that citizens with small arms stand a real chance against a "massive standing army," (with the kinds of weapons that defeated Saddam in quick order) you're kidding yourself. My neighbor and I don't have that kind of fire power.
Missed my point if you think I thought this. I was making more of a case against having a massive standing army, like some of our Framers; and making a case for more of a citizen militia. ( not omitting my caveat there even)

If you have a connection that would allow us to procure a decent Stealth fighter, we might be interested.

We're open to discussions about refurbished attack helicopters as well.
See above, again. Also the case for amassing more and more executive power in the presidency like it's a monarchy is not the right check and balance either. All things must be considered including the idea of guerrilla warfare and terrorism as the poor and less armed man's way of fighting through attrition. Ya' know the kind that's taken down world powers in the past where few battles are won but the war is won. Example: America's War for Independence. Yeah! That kinda thing.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 11:32 AM
“My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military.”


"I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”


“There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”


Major General Smedley Butler

ClevelandBronco
04-06-2008, 02:00 PM
...I was making more of a case against having a massive standing army...

A massive professional armed force stands now and will continue to stand. To debate about it is a waste of time.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 02:37 PM
A massive professional armed force stands now and will continue to stand. To debate about it is a waste of time.

So why are you participating in it?
I don't think it's a waste. I think there should be a reorganization but not so long as we keep increasing govt will it ever happen. Time for a new Dec of Independence, imo.

banyon
04-06-2008, 04:41 PM
So why are you participating in it?
I don't think it's a waste. I think there should be a reorganization but not so long as we keep increasing govt will it ever happen. Time for a new Dec of Independence, imo.

Advocating the armed overthrow of your government?

Thanks for tripping the Echelon sensor.