The Coming Police State

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:10 am

I don't watch hardly any television. I don't drink coffee at three in the morning listening to conspiracy theory radio, nor do I I have a SETI tracker on my computer, and I don't give a damn if the chupecabra exists. I no longer associate with any political party and the freedom of the individual is now my greatest concern.

History has taught us about incrementalization, the slow but sure act of oppression brought by a governing power over a long period of time. The frog won't hop out of the pot if you slowly turn up the heat. Ever since the groundwork was laid right after 9/11, the people's freedoms have been slowly stripped away, one by one. It started with the Patriot Act, and most recently we've found that American citizens can be killed by drone planes "legitimately". In between is a string of acts and executive orders to guide us to a police state.

We see it in every corner of American life. Simple peaceful protests are met with overwhelming hostility, and our prisons are rapidly filling with those who have committed "victimless crimes". We can't board planes without being picked at and groped, by those who have never caught a terrorist. The police shoot, taze, pepper spray and beat unarmed, even subdued individuals for no reason. The police have even employed instruments of war against the citizens, ie sound weapon technology.

Now they're after our guns, which is a direct violation of the principles upon which this nation was founded. The government and the media they fuel has people bickering about whether or not we need them, distracting everyone from the fact that the issue is moot, and we have the right to bear them. It is on this note I detect the final straw. Those we cannot trust, those who have proven themselves unable to govern are asking us to give up our methods of defense.

Put 2 and 2 together perhaps? I'm not looking for a fight here, I want people to wake up and see the dangerous direction we're heading in as a nation. As far as I'm concerned, you're all on my side, as citizens, as my countrymen, whether we share the same views or not. I've chosen much too late of an hour to try and possibly convey my entire platform, but I feel as this conversation develops, you'll understand.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:31 am

Silver, if you glanced at some of the threads here upon your seasonal return, you would see that I share your concerns about personal privacy and basic freedoms being eroded. I concur that this has been an incremental process, going back decades and accelerating after 9/11. In fact, on one of the gun rights threads, I questioned(citing Bill Maher's humorous description) what 'freedoms' were being protected with armed citizenry, when they had long since been essentially given away(we could have, as a society, fought such incursions but chose not to).
Now, where I differ with you is around a few facts and the overall trajectory of the future. First, the jails are full of folks who generally commit the victimless crime of drug possession, and there seems to be a critical mass developing to change that within this decade. Second, to suggest that TSA hasn't caught any terrorists is flat-out false, and I suspect there are far more cases that have never come to light. Third, I'd need linkage to any use of military weapons such as sonic stuff on civilians. You might be right, but I am unaware of it. Finally, the right to bear arms......and this one obviously has been beaten to death here, but I will toss out some thoughts that have more recently come from my re-reading Jefferson and others. Bear in mind that the Founders lived through the experience of their own country(Britain) using a standing army to subdue its own citizenry. For that reason, and Jefferson writes about this more clearly than the more-quoted Madison, they did not want a government which had a standing army. The constitution is quite clear that while the government could raise an army, it could only fund one for two years at a time at most. Thus, understanding that external threats existed, but not wishing an established army, they needed an armed citizenry to be able to form militias. Having seen the British government attempt to disarm the citizens, the 2nd Amendment was put in to prevent this. However, we DID establish a standing army by the mid-19th century, and now have a vast established military. Further, while the 18th century weaponry of the citizens was essentially the same as that of any standing army(sans cannons), Madison's view that such an armed citizenry could keep the government honest made sense. It no longer does, as the government is better armed than the citizenry ever could hope to be, with secret stuff the citizenry doesn't even know about or likely comprehend. Another Jeffersonian idea that fits here is the notion he had that the whole Constitution ought to be re-visited and adapted to the times every generation.
My conclusions? Well, I don't see anything imminent about weapons being taken away at all, no one seems to have any real plan or goal to do so, at least no one who really matters, politically. And, while I share your concerns about the erosion of personal liberty, thus far I see no reason to panic that a dictatorship is going to use that erosion against us. I would agree that we should be both vigilant, and actively working to restore personal liberties around speech, asssembly, private property(see eminent domain rulings of late) and especially PRIVACY. I think we should, during the election process, be working far more to demand a return of those liberties, and far less about making abortion law stricter, the status of gay marriage, or the personal attacks upon 'left-right' extremes. Most useful of all would be a renewed committment of all citizens to education, of themselves and their children, on civics, history and especially current affairs. Less fluff, sound-bites and 'reality TV'(although I demand the right to keep watching Duck Dynasty) and more focus on the real, deep issues that affect the nation. We have, despite all this new technology, become, as a nation, far less aware of current events in the nation and the world, and more reliant on someone else telling us how to think. And, to return to Jefferson and the founders, they warned at the outset that the system they put in place absolutely depended on an informed, involved citizenry.
Good topic, Silver.....welcome back and hope your time away working was productive and happy.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:42 am

A big portion of the reason Jails are filled with victimless drug users is because the prison industry is a multi-billion dollar private industry and one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington that you've never heard of before. The prison industry is most interested in keeping Americans locked up, because the more Americans they can lock up, the more money they make. And since Washington answers to money first, you get what we have here in America; a greater number and percentage of citizens locked up in prisons than any other nation on earth. It doesn't really have anything to do with being like a police state, it is simply because we have a money run state that this happens. The dollar is nothing more than toilet paper used to wipe the asses of corporate America.

When it comes to freedom, liberty, and justice, it is the same as it has always been: you can get exactly as much of them as you can afford.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:35 pm

Not to hard to imagine a up coming police state with cities like New York doing stop and frisk on any one they feel are suspicious.

As for protester being over overwhelmed by police just look for some of the videos out there

http://abcnews.go.com/US/occupy-protest ... d=14990310

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:19 pm

First of all, thanks for allowing this conversation to occur without libel, I feel that it is a lot more productive that way.

Slick, I'm glad that there are a few points we can agree on. I'm going to start by saying that touching the gun issue, at least on this forum, will go nowhere. I've been posting on this forum for almost 14 years and I can tell you that is a fact. So let's dance around some other topics.

I believe after that you addressed my claim about the TSA. I understand that while they have some security risks in talking about the people they apprehend, but if you could provide me with sources to the ones you know about it would be much appreciated. In turn I give you:

Sonic weapons used against peaceful protestors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akwjAjcQnqM - LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) pulls up around 8:15 though I recommend you watch the entire video for context. This is not the only one available for watching, but now that you know the name of the weapon it should be easy for you to look more up.

To address both you and Krom on the victimless prison issue, I first want to say, Slick, I hope, I only hope our brothers languishing in their cages for...not hurting anyone

... are freed as soon as possible. It's just another agenda that our corrupt government needs to run. Why is LSD confronted with a life sentence? It's because LSD breaks down social barriers in your mind and makes you question authority. Why is Cannabis illegal? They don't want to watch their booming alcohol trade, paper trade, fabrics, fuel, food, etc to face any competition (capitalism huh?), thanks to the lobbyist fucks that are corrupting the system even further. The governing powers don't give a damn about you or your personal health or safety, or they would be spending all the money we use on keeping these guys inside on healthcare, or education. Pharmacies sell legal meth anyway, why...oh yeah, you might piss off Mitt Romney.

On the same topic, Krom, I agree totally with everything but your last statement, because nothing is stopping the people from rising up and dragging all these fuckers into the street. Theres only 535 of them. But you have to slay a bunch of storm troopers before you get to the Fuhrer. Hopefully before that happens they'll realize how serious we are. If we need a bunch of guys like Dorner getting them scared, getting them uncomfortable, so be it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:31 pm

Slick, your points have some serious holes in them. There are people who 'count' that ARE trying to disarm us, the state of Missouri 'counts'...and there are many in power in Washington who hold that same desire and are 'turning up the heat on the pot' at every chance...your failure to recognize it is aiding and abetting their efforts. I don't know if you do it on purpose or through ignorance but it is wrong for you to do it either way.

If you would think logically you would realize that although a bunch of citizens with single shot shotguns don't hold much chance in turning back a squad of 'Homeland Security' troops, a bunch of men with AR-15's do... There are literally millions of quality long arms in the hands of millions of Americans that pose a serious threat to any military take over of this country. So serious that it makes the Mujaheddin look like a bunch of boy scouts with BB guns and they have done pretty damn well at facing down U.S.S.R. and American armies with the state of the art gear. Any kind of protracted assault on the citizens here would create the same kind of strange bedfellow foriegn suppliers working to aid the insurgents here that we have seen pop up in other countries where outsiders have good reason to aid the people who rise up against the ruling powers. For the tyrants to prevent any kind of protracted resistance they must disarm the potential insurgents BEFORE taking over. That is the thing you seem to be willing to allow and that is the thing that MUST NOT be allowed.

There are no magic weapons that would allow the U.S. Army to wipe the millions of insurgents away. It would be years of bloody hell to take on the armed citizens we have today! You can't bomb them away...see Iraq... Afghanistan...etc. etc.. see history... You must go house to house on foot to clear out a force. End of slicks secret weapon fairy tale story.

Insurgency is a very real threat factor in all military planning and it has proven to be the downfall of many high tech armies over and over again. So when Madison and others put stock and faith in the citizens right to keep and bear arms to be a deterrent and a necessary component to turn back a tyrannical government running over the citizens they were not wrong.

Also, you are trying to create a bit of a red herring argument to suggest that because we have allowed a standing army to exist the need for an armed citizenry is moot when the PRIMARY reason for establishing an individual right to keep and bear arms WAS NOT to create an army for the federal government to command as you imply but instead to ensure the citizens COULD RESIST ONE if one ever turned on us.

Those are important distinctions that you are, for whatever reason, ignoring and you do us all a great disservice by helping push that line of thinking forward! Please rethink and stop ignoring reality and necessity...even if those needs and facts are the kind that you don't particularly enjoy facing.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:18 pm

In any scenario one can think of…be it someone that wants to become president for life, or some major revolution, and everything in between, the only chance of success is having the backing of the military, and as history has shown, most of the time the military splits up and supports both sides, and all hell breaks loose.

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:38 pm

I seen the purposed bill for Missouri
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi ... B0545I.HTM

To actually want citizens to hand over their weapon is really to much to ask. It is also most likely not to even make it up for a vote.

Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:07 pm

Spidey wrote:In any scenario one can think of…be it someone that wants to become president for life, or some major revolution, and everything in between, the only chance of success is having the backing of the military, and as history has shown, most of the time the military splits up and supports both sides, and all hell breaks loose.

I agree completely.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:46 am

I don't really have time or enough information to properly engage in this discussion at this time. However, it is something I've given some thought to, so I would like to share a realization I've had about the nature of the discussion.

A lot of people on the conservative side approach this from a perspective of deep appreciation for what is at stake--our individual liberties, some already lost, established from the conception of the United States of America. At the same time they are approaching what is ultimately a very complex problem/entity from a natural (and unavoidable) degree of ignorance. They are what they are. They spend their lives working in various fields which take up their time, and the quality of information and understanding readily available to them is limited. They are working with an incomplete understanding of an apparent and imminent threat. This is where statements like "the government [this]", or "the government [that]" hail from (not necessarily on this BB), when the discussion really deserves more specificity. My recommendation to anyone who feels as strongly about this as SilverFJ does (and I'm well on my way), is that you deal with your ignorance as your single greatest weakness (and the single greatest threat to you) in any coming conflict. If you mis-characterize your opponent then you fall in the arena of public debate, and an otherwise just cause will have no support. And if you direct violent action against a mis-characterized opponent you may just find yourself in the wrong, for all your good intentions. This country was founded by people who understood the problems facing them in all their complexity, through the determination of those willing to fight for a just cause accurately presented. I'm sure it wasn't ALL perfectly done, but which ideal are we settling for? The one that really got it done, or the one that helped in spite of its failings?

So is this "a police state developing"? Or is that the goal of certain people in positions of authority at the head of the federal government, and the real imminent danger to us is local police forces with their own elements of corruption going along with it? What does the beast look like, when you cut through all the noise? Should we be happy that this guy was killing cops, or is he just another part of a very complex problem? Are cops the enemies, or are they just people like us who potentially collaborate in something much bigger by making the wrong decisions for right or wrong reasons? There may come a time when regardless of intent someone has crossed the line and it's time to make a stand, but better to know the time than to start shooting for the wrong reasons.

If you can tell a police officer just exactly what he is doing wrong, then there is a chance for him to relent and decide against it. If you treat his as your enemy, then you will be his enemy. (IMO if that bonehead at the megaphone in your video hadn't been such a hippy, and instead of preaching to the choir while taunting the uniforms had been fairly and accurately stating the wrongs being committed, and why these actions are wrong, he might have actually accomplished something and changed some minds.)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 1:32 pm

Don't think a police state is coming or even possible? Think again........

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ones-to-l/

You'd better hope that your community stands up and bans their police from buying and using their OWN drones, like they did in Seattle. The FAA has already approved the permit requests of many local police departments to use private drones for surveillance. This is one piece of legislation that can be squarely laid at Obama's feet too. Hello George Orwell.

http://rt.com/usa/news/faa-drone-aircraft-us-335/

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:35 pm

I think I'm OK with a police force using drones in the context of a recon tool with 'security camera footage' side benefits to be introduced as evidence. However, as with traffic light cameras, I don't think they should be able to make arrests solely based on what they can observe.
For example, you shouldn't be issuing a ticket for me running a red light unless a cop was there to witness first hand...but if they see me running the same light on camera all week long and decide to go pull me over because they 'know when' I'll be there running it again based on their camera intel then good on them.

Imagine 911 gets a call saying a 3 guys in a red 4 door car just grabbed a little girl at some location and they can get a drone overhead in a minutes time, quick enough to follow the kidnappers. Due to the geography of the city the nearest patrol car is too far away to close the gap in time....hell yes I'm for it.

No reason to arm the things except maybe a SWAT team could make use of that in some situations. If they are going to shoot someone anyway I don't care what delivery mechanism is used as long as they don't kill friendlies.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:14 pm

Sounds good on the surface, but that's how our freedoms are slowly being taken away, by using our fears of what MIGHT happen in some crime. That's how the Patriot Act got through, fear of terrorist acts, and that's how they'll justify using police drones. They'll start looking through our windows at night to see what we MIGHT be doing wrong, all to stave off a POTENTIAL crime. Maybe they don't like the look of that nice, powerful weapon you've been telling us about. Maybe they'll get it into their minds that you're going to shoot someone with it.

Whatever happened to privacy, probable cause and search warrants? Are we willing to give all that up to stop some bad things that MIGHT happen? If ever there was an abuse of the Constitution by our President, THIS IS IT.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 5:47 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Sounds good on the surface, but that's how our freedoms are slowly being taken away, by using our fears of what MIGHT happen in some crime. That's how the Patriot Act got through, fear of terrorist acts, and that's how they'll justify using police drones. They'll start looking through our windows at night to see what we MIGHT be doing wrong, all to stave off a POTENTIAL crime. Maybe they don't like the look of that nice, powerful weapon you've been telling us about. Maybe they'll get it into their minds that you're going to shoot someone with it.

Whatever happened to privacy, probable cause and search warrants? Are we willing to give all that up to stop some bad things that MIGHT happen? If ever there was an abuse of the Constitution by our President, THIS IS IT.

How is it any different in the way I described the use of drones compared to the way we use seized/volunteered footage from private security cameras as well as the way we use helicopters with live cops in them?

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 7:25 pm

Try not to obscure the discussion by bringing reality into it, Will.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:29 pm

Police states never last. No worries.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:42 am

Tell that to the people of N.Korea.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:44 am

vision wrote:Police states never last. No worries.

It doesn't even begin if the people have a means and will to resist it...

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:19 pm

woodchip wrote:Tell that to the people of N.Korea.

Is it a police state if you worship your leader as a god?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 6:59 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Tell that to the people of N.Korea.
Is it a police state if you worship your leader as a god?

Depends if it is honest adulation or faked because if you don't you go to the gulag.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:39 pm

Will Robinson wrote:How is it any different in the way I described the use of drones compared to the way we use seized/volunteered footage from private security cameras as well as the way we use helicopters with live cops in them?

I don't particularly like public security cameras, but at least they only show public spaces where everyone expects to be on public display. The operative difference is that those cameras don't point right into the windows of my home like some voyeur. My neighbor doesn't have the right to point a camera specifically into a window of my home either, so why should the police have that right?

What I don't like about drones is that they are very maneuverable and small, can go just about anywhere and peer into any window or backyard of any home at the suspicion or whim of some cop or investigator, without you, the homeowner, knowing that they're out there doing it. I don't know about you, but I'd like a little privacy in and around my home from the prying eyes of the authorities. Remember the movie Blue Thunder? That's what I'm talking about, although with drones, not a quiet helicopter. You'll remember that the hero destroyed the helicopter in the finale and exposed to the public what the corrupt police department was using it for.

Here's an example with this Oregon case. What the police did with their little thermal peek was ultimately found to be a violation of the 4th Amendment according to SCOTUS. The majority decision wasn't even along partisan lines either. How are the authorities even getting around this with drones and sophisticated new imaging technologies? Any looking, peeking or glancing within a private residence, no matter how casual, or by what method, constitutes a "search" according to SCOTUS. I guess they could get around that by getting a search warrant, but they have to at least have a reason for that warrant that some judge would allow. Warrant first, peek second.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:21 am

tunnelcat wrote:Here's an example with this Oregon case. What the police did with their little thermal peek was ultimately found to be a violation of the 4th Amendment according to SCOTUS. The majority decision wasn't even along partisan lines either.

Hee, that really was an unusual vote. I wonder if it went along the lines of which justices were planning on lighting one up later on.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:53 am

Top Gun wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:Here's an example with this Oregon case. What the police did with their little thermal peek was ultimately found to be a violation of the 4th Amendment according to SCOTUS. The majority decision wasn't even along partisan lines either.
Hee, that really was an unusual vote. I wonder if it went along the lines of which justices were planning on lighting one up later on.

A weed caucus in the SCOTUS....

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:03 am

Why not, we have a member of the choom gang in the office of president.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:05 am

Spidey wrote:Why not, we have a member of the choom gang in the office of president.

more BS, sad to see, around no respect for the office....

it's a shame that some folks cannot restrain themselves from stupid comments on a daily basis taking cheap shots at their duly-elected President.....

Heretic · Post by **Heretic** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:14 am

I guess ABC is out of line also.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... hoom-gang/

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:27 am

no, citing a book back when it comes out is one thing.....dredging up the matter 8 months later is obsessively negative. A difference, IMO, but of course, there will be those that disagree.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:31 am

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Why not, we have a member of the choom gang in the office of president.
more BS, sad to see, around no respect for the office....
it's a shame that some folks cannot restrain themselves from stupid comments on a daily basis taking cheap shots at their duly-elected President.....

You mean because he was elected we must give him special treatment? Like we are his subjects and he is royalty? Weren't those tea party repubs also duly elected? Should you go retract your thread on how they are all idiots? Or did you mean to say he was a duly elected democrat and therefore he deserves special treatment? Do storys 'drug up' on Dems have a shorter life span than those about repubs?

How about this, "the office" is nothing but a great job. It comes with lots of perks but automatic respect isn't on the list. If he wants respect he earns it.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:40 am

Will Robinson wrote: You mean because he was elected we must give him special treatment?

no, the common respect extended to the holder of the office.

Like we are his subjects and he is royalty?

no, see above.

Weren't those tea party repubs also duly elected? Should you go retract your thread on how they are all idiots?

no, they are state/district elected. I suppose they do deserve the respect of their constituents, but not necessarily anyone else. Obama is President of the United States.

Or did you mean to say he was a duly elected democrat and therefore he deserves special treatment? Do storys 'drug up' on Dems have a shorter life span than those about repubs?

for the record, I said the same thing to folks dredging up Bush stories from the past, even stuff he did early in the Presidency....

How about this, "the office" is nothing but a great job. It comes with lots of perks but automatic respect isn't on the list. If he wants respect he earns it.

sorry, but the ongoing cheap shotting demeans the nation as well as devalues the value of the opinions of those doing the cheap shots. This is especially true when viewed from the lens of foreign affairs, which heretofore we demonstrated a national unity, and Obama seems to bring out second guessing ignoramuses from every single action abroad.

Essentially, what should be a 'loyal opposition' in the great tradition of representative republics has turned into a bunch of whiners, who fewer and fewer are bothering to take seriously. How's that work out for your side, Will? Seriously?

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:20 pm

Callmeslick, I'm still respectively waiting for your reply to my last message.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:22 pm

Spidey wrote:Why not, we have a member of the choom gang in the office of president.

So? What difference does it make if Obama smoked a toke or 2 in his younger days? Dubya was a notorious drunk in his younger days, even though he "claimed" he was staying on the wagon while he was pres. Ah, suuuure you stayed sober...............

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:48 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Spidey wrote:Why not, we have a member of the choom gang in the office of president.
So? What difference does it make if Obama smoked a toke or 2 in his younger days? Dubya was a notorious drunk in his younger days, even though he "claimed" he was staying on the wagon while he was pres. Ah, suuuure you stayed sober...............

now, I hate to pick on you, TC, but this is what I'm talking about......on the other side of the coin. I may not have voted for the guy, but innuendo and whatnot should play no part in it once elected, unless they guy showed up with urine stains on his pants and reeking of gin. Hell, for better or worse, we did manage to come through 8 years of Bush without the nation collapsing, or Cheney declaring himself ruler for life. Likewise, I'd like to see the Obama whiners get over the two defeats and realize that we, as citizens, are all in this thing together and try and focus on moving the country forward, not raising panics and cries of doom on a daily basis. The nation is NOT going to become Communist, the President is working on behalf of us all, and his foreign policy is relatively sound.

Now, to return to the imminent police state.....

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:17 pm

callmeslick wrote:.. How's that work out for your side, Will? Seriously?

My side can't even get on the ballot or included in the debates so don't try to shame me into supporting the status quo...

that office, that would be the one where Clinton played hide the cigar with his 19 year old intern.... and you want me to concern myself with how a citizen sniping at the current office holder will affect our image?!?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:28 pm

image? Hell, no, it affects other's perception of your seriousness, and thus your ability to have people take you seriously.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:29 pm

Listen…captain kneejerk, that Choom Gang reference came right out of a authorized bio on the president, and no f*in disrespect was meant by it.

Get a life.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:38 pm

Spidey wrote:Listen…captain kneejerk, that Choom Gang reference came right out of a authorized bio on the president, and no f*in disrespect was meant by it.

Get a life.

returning, or attempting to, yet again, I want to hear more about the coming police state, because while I see lots of erosion of personal privacy and rights around private property, I don't get the feeling that Storm Troopers are at the door, or even preparing to be.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:12 pm

Yes Captain KneeJerk…anything you say Captain KneeJerk.

(It was you that derailed the subject in the first place)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:16 pm

callmeslick wrote:now, I hate to pick on you, TC, but this is what I'm talking about......on the other side of the coin. I may not have voted for the guy, but innuendo and whatnot should play no part in it once elected, unless they guy showed up with urine stains on his pants and reeking of gin. Hell, for better or worse, we did manage to come through 8 years of Bush without the nation collapsing, or Cheney declaring himself ruler for life. Likewise, I'd like to see the Obama whiners get over the two defeats and realize that we, as citizens, are all in this thing together and try and focus on moving the country forward, not raising panics and cries of doom on a daily basis. The nation is NOT going to become Communist, the President is working on behalf of us all, and his foreign policy is relatively sound.

Now, to return to the imminent police state.....

Naw, your right. I tend to get sidetracked by the pettiness. It is fun however to poke and jab.

As for us turning into a police state, that may be hard to tell until it's too late. The signs are there, but it's still under everyone's radar, all because everyone thinks they need protection from the terrorist boogeyman.

You'll have to admit that our personal freedoms are being slowly eroded by the use of fear since 9/11. Bush started chipping away at our personal liberties after 9/11 and Obama has continued feeding the Homeland Security monster Bush created. It's become another big government money pit. Just go to New York sometime as take a look at what the NYPD has become courtesy of our Federal tax dollars. It almost looks like an armed camp run by the Gestapo at times with all their fancy new surveillance equipment, weapons and vehicles. They sure take the lion's share of security dollars that the Feds dole out. That's not the least of it. Take a look at what Homeland Security is doing with OUR tax dollars in the rest of the country. I present the BearCat, the toy of choice for all the municipal police departments around the country. Is it needed? You decide.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/liberal- ... l-carrier/

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/12/ ... error-toys

Maybe it's not an issue, maybe it is. There's a lot of dubious hearsay and downright propaganda out there about FEMA and it's child brownshirt army and Homeland Security becoming the new Gestapo. That's to be expected with the crazy side of the country that hates Obama. But sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees until it IS too late. At the worst, these programs are a vast waste of our sparse tax dollars that could go to something more important.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:01 pm

I actually went to the railyard in Indiana that is 'supposed' to be the site of FEMAs planned interment camps. It is a working Amtrak yard, shared by private contractors refurbing old Pullman cars for excursion companies. I know because my son in law works there, and I dropped him off for work when visiting at Christmas. Nothing too sinister going on that I could see.....

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:16 am

I don't buy into the conspiracy stuff but one thing they seem to be pointing out is very unusual. The amount of pistol ammunition the DHS is buying is absolutely remarkable. Using the number of rounds of ammunition fired in the recent war in Iraq as a baseline the DHS has allegedly purchased enough .40 and 9mm pistol ammo to keep that rate of ammo use up for 30 years!

My best, non brownshirt type, conspiracy theory is they are trying to drive the price up/availability down but even that seems silly to me.

All I know is if the ammo purchase numbers are correct, and all the reports of previously non armed departments are now being armed are correct, there is no wonder at people thinking the government is gearing up for civil unrest.