Martial Law in US begins October 1 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 09-23-2008, 10:34 PM

I've taken issue with the militarization of police that's happened over my lifetime, but having an active military unit (3rd infantry divisions 1st combat team) in the United States for the purposes of crowd control would, I believe, technically qualify as indefinite martial law. The pevious case of martial law in the US was during Katrina when local law enforcement was unable to deal with the aftermath, but Blackwater contractors being used and repeated reports of civil rights abuses in that instance suggest a very dangerous situation we might be headed into.

I'm suddenly very, very uncomfortable.

What are your thoughts on having an active military unit in the United States for an unstated amount of time, supposedly for "crowd control"?

Aside from the aforementioned discomfort, my mind is telling me about a thousand horrible things that this could mean. The most frightening, obviously, is a case in which Bush is somehow able to remain in power, but I keep having to tell myself that's just paranoia.

I suppose a more reasonable conclusion would be that this is further evidence that protesting is not going to be tolerated. After the creation of free speech zones, I had an idea of what might happen to the right of free speech and assembly, but I must say I didn't expect the military.

My last concern is that the military has weapons unavailable to police that could potentially be much, much more dangerous to protesters. My heart aches at the thought of a man or woman being hurt or killed while trying to get their voice heard by the powers that be (or rather the powers that simply don't care).

October 1st will be a sad day for my country.

Cynthetiq · 09-24-2008, 12:10 AM

Why? Because some talking head said to be afraid of something or someone?

Quote:

View: Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
Source: Armytimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1

3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
By Gina Cavallaro - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 8, 2008 6:15:06 EDT

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

The command is at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., but the soldiers with 1st BCT, who returned in April after 15 months in Iraq, will operate out of their home post at Fort Stewart, Ga., where they’ll be able to go to school, spend time with their families and train for their new homeland mission as well as the counterinsurgency mission in the war zones.

Stop-loss will not be in effect, so soldiers will be able to leave the Army or move to new assignments during the mission, and the operational tempo will be variable.

Don’t look for any extra time off, though. The at-home mission does not take the place of scheduled combat-zone deployments and will take place during the so-called dwell time a unit gets to reset and regenerate after a deployment.

The 1st of the 3rd is still scheduled to deploy to either Iraq or Afghanistan in early 2010, which means the soldiers will have been home a minimum of 20 months by the time they ship out.

In the meantime, they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.

“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.”

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

Should personnel be needed at an earthquake in California, for example, all or part of the brigade could be scrambled there, depending on the extent of the need and the specialties involved.

Other branches included
The active Army’s new dwell-time mission is part of a NorthCom and DOD response package.

Active-duty soldiers will be part of a force that includes elements from other military branches and dedicated National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.

A final mission rehearsal exercise is scheduled for mid-September at Fort Stewart and will be run by Joint Task Force Civil Support, a unit based out of Fort Monroe, Va., that will coordinate and evaluate the interservice event.

In addition to 1st BCT, other Army units will take part in the two-week training exercise, including elements of the 1st Medical Brigade out of Fort Hood, Texas, and the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade from Fort Bragg, N.C.

There also will be Air Force engineer and medical units, the Marine Corps Chemical, Biological Initial Reaction Force, a Navy weather team and members of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

One of the things Vogler said they’ll be looking at is communications capabilities between the services.

“It is a concern, and we’re trying to check that and one of the ways we do that is by having these sorts of exercises. Leading up to this, we are going to rehearse and set up some of the communications systems to make sure we have interoperability,” he said.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is — I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

seems like they are trained on non-leathal packages for control.

seems like they are going to have specific tasks for domestic deployment uses that seem to reasonably cover domestic issues "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

Jozrael · 09-24-2008, 02:45 AM

I find it hilarious that they will be called 'sea-smurfs'.

And @Will: Honestly, I support the use of free speech zones in many examples. Notably what that church was doing by picketing funerals for American soldiers. Screaming at their family members that they were going to hell because they were defending a country that defended homosexuality.

:\.

roachboy · 09-24-2008, 03:23 AM

i don't think this is a good idea at all. at all.
it doesn't freak me out--it is just a bad bad idea.
one of the few things that has guaranteed such illusion of political freedom as we have is the separation of interal spheres from the purview of the military.
i like these illusions of political freedom.
this is a bad bad idea.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 04:00 AM

When Bush established and activated a new "Northern Command" in 2002, it raised questions in my mind.

NORTHCOM'S mission:

Quote:

USNORTHCOM’s civil support mission includes domestic disaster relief operations that occur during fires, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes. Support also includes counter-drug operations and managing the consequences of a terrorist event employing a weapon of mass destruction. The command provides assistance to a Lead Agency when tasked by DoD. Per the Posse Comitatus Act, military forces can provide civil support, but cannot become directly involved in law enforcement.

Isnt that why we have a National Guard, FBI, US Boarder Patrol, state and local law enforcement.....

ratbastid · 09-24-2008, 04:01 AM

The division between military and police is a doctrine with a lot of standing and precedent in our country. To have that doctrine shattered, especially at a time when people are beginning to reject the governmental response to a massive financial crisis, is alarming.

Charlatan · 09-24-2008, 04:09 AM

Another example of the need to protect the market for the privatized military that you have created. Once the withdrawal from Iraq starts to happen you will need to find something for these Industries to do.

ottopilot · 09-24-2008, 05:47 AM

I see slippery slopes all around. Hopefully the right people are paying attention (including the citizenry).

samcol · 09-24-2008, 06:21 AM

Isn't it bad enough that we have to put up with cops in darth vader uniforms at these large events? How are they going to be more effective than what the cops already do besides escalating the level of force? Also, I thought this responsibility was on the state governors and the national guard in times of crisis.

The military has no place doing this and is in violation of Posse Comitatus.

I think the real question is what are they getting ready for? Are they expecting an economic collapse, another terrorist attack, or some 'electioneering' protests?

I assume they aren't trained in domestic laws either. How does that even work? Do they perform and arrest or just harass people if they see them doing something they think is wrong? Do they even have to have warrants?

This is very scary.

ratbastid · 09-24-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I see slippery slopes all around. Hopefully the right people are paying attention (including the citizenry).

Have you been to America? Well, maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to talk about it.

Incidentally: Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willravel · 09-24-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Why? Because some talking head said to be afraid of something or someone?

Thinking for yourself may be something new for some, but not for me. But you already know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

seems like they are trained on non-leathal packages for control.

So are the ATF and FBI, but Waco was sure a mess. I'm not saying that this will lead to another Waco necessarily, just being trained for non-lethal strategies does not absolutely prevent lethal strategies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

seems like they are going to have specific tasks for domestic deployment uses that seem to reasonably cover domestic issues "They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

I've been in some areas that might have qualified as "civil unrest". I cannot imagine a situation where having military on the scene would make anyone, protester or not, more safe.

I wasn't alive for Kent state, but I wonder if other people were having this conversation as the National Guard was called.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jozrael

And @Will: Honestly, I support the use of free speech zones in many examples. Notably what that church was doing by picketing funerals for American soldiers. Screaming at their family members that they were going to hell because they were defending a country that defended homosexuality.

I don't like members of Westbro Baptist Church any more than you do, but not liking their message leading to removing their right to free speech doesn't seem like a good precedent to set. And I don't expect that these troops will be at WBC protests, more likely they will be at the kinds of protests at the DNC and RNC this year.

MSD · 09-24-2008, 07:46 AM

I don't see why anything more than the National Guard should be needed for emergencies. Living in fear like this is a self-perpetuating cycle and I'm more concerned with the military illegally performing law enforcement functions (likely against Americans) than civil unrest or terror attack.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Another example of the need to protect the market for the privatized military that you have created. Once the withdrawal from Iraq starts to happen you will need to find something for these Industries to do.

Once the withdrawal from Iraq starts?

Blackwater private security forces on the streets of New Orleans under a $30 million contract with FEMA.

Quote:

The men from Blackwater USA arrived in New Orleans right after Katrina hit. The company known for its private security work guarding senior US diplomats in Iraq beat the federal government and most aid organizations to the scene in another devastated Gulf. About 150 heavily armed Blackwater troops dressed in full battle gear spread out into the chaos of New Orleans. Officially, the company boasted of its forces "join[ing] the hurricane relief effort." But its men on the ground told a different story.

Some patrolled the streets in SUVs with tinted windows and the Blackwater logo splashed on the back; others sped around the French Quarter in an unmarked car with no license plates. They congregated on the corner of St. James and Bourbon in front of a bar called 711, where Blackwater was establishing a makeshift headquarters. From the balcony above the bar, several Blackwater guys cleared out what had apparently been someone's apartment. They threw mattresses, clothes, shoes and other household items from the balcony to the street below. They draped an American flag from the balcony's railing. More than a dozen troops from the 82nd Airborne Division stood in formation on the street watching the action....

...When asked what authority they were operating under, one guy said, "We're on contract with the Department of Homeland Security." Then, pointing to one of his comrades, he said, "He was even deputized by the governor of the state of Louisiana. We can make arrests and use lethal force if we deem it necessary." The man then held up the gold Louisiana law enforcement badge he wore around his neck. Blackwater spokesperson Anne Duke also said the company has a letter from Louisiana officials authorizing its forces to carry loaded weapons.

"This vigilantism demonstrates the utter breakdown of the government," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "These private security forces have behaved brutally, with impunity, in Iraq. To have them now on the streets of New Orleans is frightening and possibly illegal."

Blackwater Down

Cynosure · 09-24-2008, 08:24 AM

Well, so much for the people uniting and rising up against the Bush administration's $700 billion bail-out plan. This active unit of hardened combat veterans of the Iraq war, now designated to deal with possible (if not probable) civil unrest and crowd control in their home country, will serve well if that bail-out plan doesn't work, where not only is each and every taxpayer left owing the government around $7,000, but our financial system collapses and we're left teetering on the brink of another Great Depression.

pan6467 · 09-24-2008, 09:06 AM

First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000. that was Clinton's presidency, not Bush's. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. were during Clinton, not Bush. So don't buy the Dem bullshit it's just the "other party" to fear. This is a great scare tactic to get people worked up and to vote for who the creators of the tactic want them to.

If this bailout doesn't work and there is a very strong possibility it won't, we may need martial law because during riots and unrest, innocent people get hurt, robbed and killed.

I said 4 yrs ago Bush would make sure there was no election and people, even those proclaiming "Martial Law 10/1" laughed and said impossible." Still laughing?

I believe that people control their own destinies. If enough believe we are doomed and this will happen, then people will do things to make sure it happens. If people see how fear can manipulate them and choose not to go apeshit and crazy.... then it won't happen. The whole self fulfilling prophecy thing.

Finally, I have stated over and over, this election will destroy the party of the person in the office. BOTH candidates are neither qualified to handle this and are surrounded by nutcases wanting power and NOT interested in truly helping the nation rebuild.

Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster? Doesn't look good. McCain? The GOP takes the fall they deserve to and in 2012 maybe we get someone like an FDR that can truly rebuild and have vision.

roachboy · 09-24-2008, 09:41 AM

wait:

so first you're claiming that an action which is the prerogative of the administration, which is the bush administration, which is, last time i checked, a republican administration with a demonstrable history of trying to govern from inside a state of emergency---which is not good if you like any trace of that democracy thing---is somehow imputable to obama's campaign? how does that work?

and then, further down, you claim:
if the melting down of the derivatives industry continues, it FOLLOWS that martial law would be a possibility?

which you then pin on the bush administration.

what gives?
could you explain your argument better?

ottopilot · 09-24-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Have you been to America? Well, maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to talk about it.

Incidentally: Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point... what are your referring to ratbastid? Why the dis with the Ryan Seacrest comment?

ratbastid · 09-24-2008, 10:16 AM

Just saying, my hope that the American people will ever wake the fuck up is very very small at this point. But perhaps we can sugar coat it with American Idol or something.

Jozrael · 09-24-2008, 10:29 AM

I was just saying that free speech has its limits will. You shouldn't be able to force yourself on others. Posting something in a newspaper? Not forcing yourself on them. Screaming at them at a funeral? Bit different. I think protesting at a convention is something in between...and I understand giving the people a (reasonable) place to voice their opinions. Should they be allowed in the convention hall to hassle the speakers? I hope not for both sides. Should they be allowed right at the entrance to physically impede/scream in the face of people attending? I disagree as well. Across the street would be fine.

However, I'm worried that it'll be like a mile away :P xD.

And yes, slippery slope on this argument applies in full force, I'm aware :x

Willravel · 09-24-2008, 10:40 AM

The free speech zones are often really, really far away. It's not a matter of hassling the speakers, it's a matter of being completely off the radar. Out of camera view is unacceptable, it's censorship.

America is supposed to be a free speech zone.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000. that was Clinton's presidency, not Bush's. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. were during Clinton, not Bush. So don't buy the Dem bullshit it's just the "other party" to fear. This is a great scare tactic to get people worked up and to vote for who the creators of the tactic want them to.

Huh...this is all about Obama?

The one video was in 2000? ....talking about forces returning from Iraq to be deployed to NORTHCOM? No...I dont think so!

The establishment and activation of NORTHCOM was by Clinton? No...I dont think so!

You've outdone yourself with this one!

Jozrael · 09-24-2008, 01:51 PM

I think out of camera view is fine :s. If I'm at the RNC and some crazy liberals want to impugn my candidate, they can do it outside. Vice versa if I was at the DNC with crazy conservatives. (I'm assuming these conventions are inside? I could be gravely mistaken). They detract from the message. THEIR message should still be heard, but separately. The candidates shouldn't be shouting over the voices of their opponents. Its...decency? I dunno the word. It may be a form of censorship, but that's acceptable to me.

Putting them far, far away so you don't have to deal with them is unacceptable. You've gotta find the middle ground. Just like security will take away hecklers at a concert, there shouldn't be hecklers at a convention. They can be around the convention, but not directly interfering with the proceedings.

The_Dunedan · 09-24-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

You've gotta find the middle ground.

My middle ground:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's all the gorram "middle ground" you're getting. Free Speech means free, period, the end. Grow a thicker skin, this is (or used to be, a hundred years ago) America. Any cop or politician who can't live with the 1st Amendment in all its' offensive, noisy, distracting glory needs a new job and a hard slap across the mouth.

And yes, the groundwork for this exercise in Reconstruction was laid by Clinton, among -many- others, every President going back to at least Johnson included.

Jozrael · 09-24-2008, 04:54 PM

I wrote a very long-winded reply that didn't really do anything but obfuscate the issue.

Point conceded. This is probably unconstitutional to abridge their first amendment rights with free speech zones.

Doesn't mean I think there isn't a time and place for that, though. I don't like the idea of carte blanche freedom of speech when it dances the line of hate speech. Not that that has anything to do with this political situation.

The_Dunedan · 09-24-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

hate speech.

No such animal. Speech is speech. Either it's -all- protected, or none of it is. I don't see anything in the 1st Amendment about "Except if it offends someone" or "except if it's hateful."

pan6467 · 09-24-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Huh...this is all about Obama?

The one video was in 2000? ....talking about forces returning from Iraq to be deployed to NORTHCOM? No...I dont think so!

The establishment and activation of NORTHCOM was by Clinton? No...I dont think so!

You've outdone yourself with this one!

Look around the 2 minute and 14 second mark and on..... hmmm the tape says April 12,2000. Who was president? At the 2:26 mark they overlap the tape with Bush laughing? Why do they want to overlap with Bush laughing when the date on the tape is 4/12/00? Seems to me I remember Clinton being president at that time.

OOO but, it wouldn't be a great scare tactic if you didn't have that type of police state video..... so you have to dig for one during Clinton's time? I'm sure you can find plenty of video during Bush's time. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6DRz1I7c6I]YouTube - MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - WHAT WILL YOU DO ???

YouTube - MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - WHAT WILL YOU DO ???

How you want me to make it all about Obama when I mentioned him ONLY at the very end, is beyond me.... but ok.

See the problem this whole thing truly shows is that people have taken sides and REFUSE to see that BOTH sides leaders are fucked up power hungry greedy fucks.

If one attacks Obama and talks about how Obama will make things worse.... one side then attacks and says "Fuck you racist, you're hate for bama shows... he is our saviour and he and only he will save us."

Meanwhile, attack McCain and how things will get worse with him, it's..... "Fuck you, you non patriotic American hating lefty pinko."

Meanwhile, the true powers that be, sit back, laugh at the puppet strings they pull and continue to rape us and take power from the people.

Both sides say, "Wake up".... yet they only mean "wake up to MY side." Not to truly wake up.

But continue telling me and everyone else who wants to believe you DC that I'm just attacking your man. You who work for the party and will say anything to protect those who pay your paycheck......

By all means.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 12 : 01 : 35-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

wait:

so first you're claiming that an action which is the prerogative of the administration, which is the bush administration, which is, last time i checked, a republican administration with a demonstrable history of trying to govern from inside a state of emergency---which is not good if you like any trace of that democracy thing---is somehow imputable to obama's campaign? how does that work?

First and foremost, I have conspiratorial tendencies. I do not believe ANYTHING in America for the last 30+ years has "just happened". I believe we have people who are deeply embedded in our government and make things happen and control the governmental responses. Did they cause 9/11? Very probable. Did they cause Hurricane Katrina? LOL, I'm not that nutty, but they controlled the response. Did they control OKC, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and things behind the scenes? Very probable.

I have contended the last few YEARS, that the next person elected president, if we have elections, would inherit a horrendous problem that would get only worse during his/her term. By all means look at posts long before the primary season, maybe 2-3 years ago from me. You will see exactly what I said and predicted.

Now, if you read the 2 beginning paragraphs I have typed here with open mind, maybe even researched past posts of mine, then you can see where I believe that for Obama this is a set up. He gets the blame in 2 years and some people will use race, some will say his background and so on. Some will still blame Bush, but not enough and the GOP will sweep the Congress much like they did in 94.

With McCain, they can say, "he just followed the pattern" and people will hopefully wake up in the GOP side.

Quote:

and then, further down, you claim:
if the melting down of the derivatives industry continues, it FOLLOWS that martial law would be a possibility?

which you then pin on the bush administration.

what gives?
could you explain your argument better?

Yes, the economy will continue to truly go down. Martial Law maybe the only way to truly save our country SHORT TERM. However, nothing in government is "short term". But when riots break out because people start losing houses, jobs, toys and are having to loot to eat and live.... Martial Law maybe all that saves innocent people.

Should it come to that. While the possibility exists, I seriously doubt it will happen large scale. Large scale it will be impossible. But they have made sure it is harder for people to exit to Canada and Mexico.... yet made it easier than ever for Mexicans and Canadians to come here. You can check in but you can never leave, so to speak.

There is a reason the drug problem especially opiates is increasing horrendously along with mindless video games, music with no political statements, and so on are being fed to our youth.

Right now, there is still enough people to fight back.... 20 years from now.... not a chance in Hell.

You destroy the education..... you turn religion into political games and put money over the true meaning of spirituality.... you make people believe money buys them power, but if you pull the strings and control who gets the money you control who gets the power...... you war with the press "Too LIBERAL" "TOO RIGHT WINGED".... you divide the country on issues and labels that have no true meaning but you make those meaningless issues more important and forefront than the true issues that would truly affect your power..... You destroy heroes...... you downplay patriotism or overplay it....... and finally you take away hope of a better life and then when you have completed all those, you have destroyed the country.

The powers that be have done a very vey good job at doing the above for the past 30+ years but it still is a generation away from finality.

This election truly means nothing..... it's 2010 and 2012 that either nails the coffin shut or allows the lid to be blown fully off.

Of course you can all claim I have no idea what I am saying.... you can all claim that I am insane..... even if you don't believe what I wrote, just read it with open mind..... LOOK DEEPLY AT WHAT IS TRULY GOING ON.... then and only then pass judgment on what I say.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

How you want me to make it all about Obama when I mentioned him ONLY at the very end, is beyond me.... but ok.

See the problem this whole thing truly shows is that people have taken sides and REFUSE to see that BOTH sides leaders are fucked up power hungry greedy fucks.

If one attacks Obama and talks about how Obama will make things worse.... one side then attacks and says "Fuck you racist, you're hate for bama shows... he is our saviour and he and only he will save us."

Meanwhile, attack McCain and how things will get worse with him, it's..... "Fuck you, you non patriotic American hating lefty pinko."

Meanwhile, the true powers that be, sit back, laugh at the puppet strings they pull and continue to rape us and take power from the people.

Both sides say, "Wake up".... yet they only mean "wake up to MY side." Not to truly wake up.

But continue telling me and everyone else who wants to believe you DC that I'm just attacking your man. You who work for the party and will say anything to protect those who pay your paycheck......

pan...lets set the record straight, please.

You mentioned Obama as the focus of the FIRST line of your post not ONLY at the very end:

First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000.

The video in the OP was not from 2000.

It was Bush who established and activated the Northern Command. It is Bush who is giving $multi-million contracts through DHS and FEMA to Blackwater USA and other private security companies to perform armed "security" services during "emergencies" in the US.

You are the only one made this about Obama...from your first line to your last...not me...or any other person posting.

And, I dont work for the Democratic party nor do they contribute to my paycheck.

Oh..and I think you set the "fuck" record for any post in TFP.

pan6467 · 09-24-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan...lets set the record straight, please.

You mentioned Obama as the focus of the FIRST line of your post not ONLY at the very end:

First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000.

You are right. I did say that. And I believe it is. The video is not done to "wake anyone up to the truth", only to wake people up to the Democrat side. It does nothing to show Clinton or talk about what happened during Clinton does it?

Quote:

The video in the OP was not from 2000.

Again very true, but I found more of the SAME video that played the part I think needs to be shown. With just the OP's part it avoided the whole 4/12/00 video with Bush's face laughing over it..... so let's just say I showed the part of the video the OP didn't want seen.

I think just the OP video shows that it is a scare tactic when the rest is shown and how they want to put Bush's face over a 4/11/00 video.

Quote:

It was Bush who established and activated the Northern Command.

Then the next president can de-establish it and unactivate it immediately upon oath...... CORRECT????? He can tell the people we don't need it and totally dismantle the whole thing? Correct?

Let's wait and see if either candidate even talks at length about it or upon taking oath dismantles it immediately.

Clinton with Ruby Ridge, Waco and so on.... didn't even go that far, he just took action.

Quote:

And, I dont work for the Democratic party nor do they contribute to my paycheck.

Hmmmm seems like I remember reading an interaction you had with I believe USTwo and you admitted working for the Dems in some capacity and even saying I believe, something along the lines of if Obama is elected you maybe moving up in position.

I'm not good at research nor do I care to take the time. So I will simply put that down as I misunderstood, misremembered or you were joking.

Quote:

Oh..and I think you set the "fuck" record for any post in TFP.

I did ........ cool. you should see my groups I use "fuck" a lot. I like the word. Yeah it doesn't look good in debates but then again, when people already have predetermined my stances and views and don't listen to a fucking word I am saying... then my use of it doesn't matter in this forum.

In group, it helps because it shows the emotion I have towards helping the people I help. The clients love the fact I have the emotion and will talk bluntly, the admins hate it. I'm not there for the admins, I'm there to help and I'm fucking damned good at it.

dc_dux · 09-24-2008, 08:47 PM

pan...the point I was making in my response to your first post was that you were the only person posting in this thread to make this about Obama...from your first line (I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support) to your last line (Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster?)

The OP and every subsequent post (except yours) is about the role of the military (not the FBI) on US soil and the danger that some here believe it presents. You chose to make it about Obama....not me nor anyone else.

You absolutely can frame it anyway you want...and I or anyone else can challenge you on it.

Willravel · 09-24-2008, 08:52 PM

Neither the video nor the text of the OP has anything whatsoever to do with Senator Obama. I don't appreciate having threads I've started being jacked. This is me asking nicely: please keep the conversations about Senator Obama in the correct threads.

pan6467 · 09-24-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Neither the video nor the text of the OP has anything whatsoever to do with Senator Obama. I don't appreciate having threads I've started being jacked. This is me asking nicely: please keep the conversations about Senator Obama in the correct threads.

If you read everything else I've written .... you should see that I truly have no intent to push the Obama thing more. I do see it as an Obama scare tactic on the surface and that was unfortunately my first reaction.... as that is what we are trained to see and react with.... choose a side, look at what comes out and if favorable to the side you have chosen applaud it, even if it is horrendous news that will hurt the country, if objectionable to your side discredit it without looking into it, to see if your side is any different.

I am easily sidetracked, which makes it easy for others to blur out what I truly was trying to say. Again, if you read my whole posts you will understand what I am saying.... hopefully. I apologize Will.

I do believe the portion of the video I put up needed to be seen though. I think it somewhat reminds us that Bush, Clinton and the 2 candidates along with all presidents since maybe JFK's assassination have done things to take us down the road to some form of dictatorship.

The problem with America is that it could not be done fast, it had to be built up to. The economic mess right now happening in an election year is not a coincidence. It helps move things. If people get too uppity over bailouts, and things get out of control...... they have had Bush set up the power to regain it back in albeit a nasty way, but they regain it.

If not needed now, they have that power when they will need it.

Again, I just don't see it happening yet. I have seen it coming, I have talked about it in here and people laughed, but you look at how the past 30+ years have been played out and you can see it truly coming.

Quote:

You destroy the education..... you turn religion into political games and put money over the true meaning of spirituality.... you make people believe money buys them power, but if you pull the strings and control who gets the money you control who gets the power...... you war with the press "Too LIBERAL" "TOO RIGHT WINGED".... you divide the country on issues and labels that have no true meaning but you make those meaningless issues more important and forefront than the true issues that would truly affect your power..... You destroy heroes...... you downplay patriotism or overplay it....... and finally you take away hope of a better life and then when you have completed all those, you have destroyed the country.

They have all been played out except the hope and the people's desire. But those are dying fast and given a few more years, if that, and the people won't have hope or desire anymore. They will be beaten down and in the words of my 10th grade World History teacher, America will not be destroyed by anyone outside but from within.

So forgive me for being easily led off.
-----Added 25/9/2008 at 01 : 37 : 30-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan...the point I was making in my response to your first post was that you were the only person posting in this thread to make this about Obama...from your first line (I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support) to your last line (Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster?)

Yes, I believe that to some degree. If I have the strings behind the curtain and I set you up to be president, the first let's say...... polka dotted president and there is still some degree of racism in the country.... now when that failure happens and you get the blame, I feed into the racial bullshit and make that even a more volatile problem.

Call me nuts and conspiratorial, but I predicted that the person in '08 was going to be in serious trouble and be blamed for problems that started years ago.

I am not trying to make this about Obama. I am trying to explain, albeit very sloppily, what I see happening in the future of this country.

Is this reality or just me being nuts.... who knows. I guess we will just have to play all this out in the end and see where it leads and hope and pray that I am very, very,very wrong and that I just needed some form of medication and deep psychotherapy.

But, if I am right..... if this happens, then will there be any way to stop the final result? Is there now?

Look at how we are being set up for possible needs for Martial law. Bailouts, the economy, partisan hatred, polls coming out saying 33% of white Democrats are racists, and on and on and on...... we are bombarded with news and polls and media ways to hate people who are richer/poorer/religious/of another party/by color/ and so on.

We are bombarded not to trust, not to believe and build a better future with our neighbors but to hate and distrust them because they are not like us for some reason.

If you look back in history ne of the great things in this country was that communities supported each other, neighbors trusted and cared for each other.... now that very rarely exists. Hell, I've seen polls that said a majority of people didn't even know their neighbors anymore.

We have a huge problem and are easily divided and conquered when we lose faith and trust in each other and replace those great qualities with hate and distrust.

Say what you will, think what you want..... but look at all of what I am trying to say and then make your judgment over me. Don't just be selective in what you see and read from me. Because again, I am easily led down that road to knee jerk reaction and then babbling over the minutia that prevails in society and then my emotions invade and I have a hard time getting out what my true point is.

Today and tonight, I have been pretty successful at getting it out without, jumping too far off and getting distracted and led down another road.

Willravel · 09-24-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If you read everything else I've written .... you should see that I truly have no intent to push the Obama thing more.

It was in your first sentence of the thread. And it wouldn't have been the first time that your opinions of Obama have spilled out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I am easily sidetracked, which makes it easy for others to blur out what I truly was trying to say. Again, if you read my whole posts you will understand what I am saying.... hopefully. I apologize Will.

I appreciate that very much.

In response to your second point in your first thread, these failures probably won't cause a collapse, just a serious recession. If I recall correctly (from my studies, not personal experience), there were protests during the Great Depression. Loup City comes to mind. Still, having a military unit instead of police is likely to incite people instead of subdue them. During the WTO protests, I remember the more violent protesters fought back against the militarized police. I can't imagine them doing that if it were a uniformed police presence without gas and such. It's like shouting in an argument; it entrenches the opposition, making a reasonable solution substantially less likely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I do believe the portion of the video I put up needed to be seen though. I think it somewhat reminds us that Bush, Clinton and the 2 candidates along with all presidents since maybe JFK's assassination have done things to take us down the road to some form of dictatorship.

You need to understand that the video you posted had nothing to do with the report on Democracy Now. It was edited together by someone on youtube after the segment aired. It's not necessarily context to the video any more than anime is context to a led zeppelin song (I'll explain that reference if it's too obscure). That was the complaint with the video.

Necrosis · 09-24-2008, 10:17 PM

Is this not exactly the sort of thing the second amendment was designed to protect us against? I suggest stationing such units everywhere the public is restricted from owning firearms.

Because the government will protect you.

pan6467 · 09-24-2008, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It was in your first sentence of the thread. And it wouldn't have been the first time that your opinions of Obama have spilled out.

Like I stated knee jerk reaction. Less knee more jerk.

Quote:

I appreciate that very much.

In response to your second point in your first thread, these failures probably won't cause a collapse, just a serious recession. If I recall correctly (from my studies, not personal experience), there were protests during the Great Depression. Loup City comes to mind.

Ah, but during the Great Depression, the country's neighbors were for the most part very supportive of each other. My grandmother tells me stories of how the neighbors and churches helped each other.

We don't see that much today. It's out there but not advertised and is getting rarer.

Quote:

Still, having a military unit instead of police is likely to incite people instead of subdue them. During the WTO protests, I remember the more violent protesters fought back against the militarized police. I can't imagine them doing that if it were a uniformed police presence without gas and such. It's like shouting in an argument; it entrenches the opposition, making a reasonable solution substantially less likely.

That's why I'm saying it is definitely coming but it will take another generation at most, 2010, 2012 elections as the earliest. It could and may come now, but in small doses with a back down and it would be just to maintain the plan of total destruction.

Right now, there are too many that came up through the 60's - 80's that still have some influence and can still throw wrenches into the works. Money bought out most, death, natural, man caused has taken many.... but there are enough remaining that could be influential and create problems. If the powers that be make their move too fast, people may listen to these "nutcases". BUT if you take your time, work a plan and have contingencies for events that may happen along the way...... but remaining focused on the end result.... it takes time but it can be done. And the "nutcases" are looked at as that and dismissed until it is too late to do anything.

I think the WTO riots, Abu Gharaib and waterboarding, showed people still aren't totally subdued, that there are still some voices out there that can be heard and listened to. It also shows that the majority is pretty much quiet but can still be scared into some form of action.

In the end, It showed them, the powers that pull the puppet strings, that their plan is working but not quite there.

Of course, these are just all ramblings from a "nutcase" who has no idea what is going on.

Cynosure · 09-25-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Obama, this... Obama, that... O-bama-lama-ding-dong... !

dksuddeth · 09-25-2008, 12:25 PM

<~~~~~~~~~ standing off to the side to see if I was right.

Willravel · 09-25-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

<~~~~~~~~~ standing off to the side to see if I was right.

I was probably wrong when I said that the government wasn't ultimately a threat. How about we say I owe you a beer?

dc_dux · 09-25-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

<~~~~~~~~~ standing off to the side to see if I was right.

I think you might be standing for quite a while.

In the meantime, I would like to hear both candidate answer these questions:

Do you agree with Bush's deployment of an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to assist in respondng to emergencies, civil unrest or potential terrorists attacks How would you use NORTHCOM or would you disband it?

What role, if any, do you see for private security companies like Blackwater USA serving in any capacity inside the US? Would you rescind the $millions of DHS/FEMA contracts for such services?

But, unfortunately, these are questions that the mainstream media will not be asking.

dksuddeth · 09-25-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think you might be standing for quite a while.

In the meantime, I would like to hear both candidate answer these questions:

Do you agree with Bush's deployment of an active duty regular Army combat unit for full-time use inside the United States to assist in respondng to emergencies, civil unrest or potential terrorists attacks How would you use NORTHCOM or would you disband it?

I firmly believe in posse comitatus and if there is an active duty military unit used as law enforcement purposes anywhere in this country, the ACLU and every other civil rights organization had better be standing in line to file lawsuits in every federal court around.

Quote:

What role, if any, do you see for private security companies like Blackwater USA serving in any capacity inside the US? Would you rescind the of DHS/FEMA contracts for such services?

Quote:

But, unfortunately, these are questions that the mainstream media will not be asking.

companies like blackwater are illegal for the purposes of providing national security at home or abroad, in my opinion. There is absolutely no provision or article in the constitution that provides the government with the authority to create civilian armies.

ASU2003 · 09-25-2008, 03:03 PM

I had this thought today. Do you think that there will be riots in the streets in major cities (Detroit, LA, Atlanta, Chicago,...) if Obama doesn't win? Is that what they are worried about?

09-23-2008, 10:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Martial Law in US begins October 1 I've taken issue with the militarization of police that's happened over my lifetime, but having an active military unit (3rd infantry divisions 1st combat team) in the United States for the purposes of crowd control would, I believe, technically qualify as indefinite martial law. The pevious case of martial law in the US was during Katrina when local law enforcement was unable to deal with the aftermath, but Blackwater contractors being used and repeated reports of civil rights abuses in that instance suggest a very dangerous situation we might be headed into. I'm suddenly very, very uncomfortable. What are your thoughts on having an active military unit in the United States for an unstated amount of time, supposedly for "crowd control"? Aside from the aforementioned discomfort, my mind is telling me about a thousand horrible things that this could mean. The most frightening, obviously, is a case in which Bush is somehow able to remain in power, but I keep having to tell myself that's just paranoia. I suppose a more reasonable conclusion would be that this is further evidence that protesting is not going to be tolerated. After the creation of free speech zones, I had an idea of what might happen to the right of free speech and assembly, but I must say I didn't expect the military. My last concern is that the military has weapons unavailable to police that could potentially be much, much more dangerous to protesters. My heart aches at the thought of a man or woman being hurt or killed while trying to get their voice heard by the powers that be (or rather the powers that simply don't care). October 1st will be a sad day for my country.

09-24-2008, 03:23 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i don't think this is a good idea at all. at all. it doesn't freak me out--it is just a bad bad idea. one of the few things that has guaranteed such illusion of political freedom as we have is the separation of interal spheres from the purview of the military. i like these illusions of political freedom. this is a bad bad idea. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-24-2008, 04:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Another example of the need to protect the market for the privatized military that you have created. Once the withdrawal from Iraq starts to happen you will need to find something for these Industries to do. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-24-2008, 05:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	I see slippery slopes all around. Hopefully the right people are paying attention (including the citizenry). __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

09-24-2008, 06:21 AM	#9 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Isn't it bad enough that we have to put up with cops in darth vader uniforms at these large events? How are they going to be more effective than what the cops already do besides escalating the level of force? Also, I thought this responsibility was on the state governors and the national guard in times of crisis. The military has no place doing this and is in violation of Posse Comitatus. I think the real question is what are they getting ready for? Are they expecting an economic collapse, another terrorist attack, or some 'electioneering' protests? I assume they aren't trained in domestic laws either. How does that even work? Do they perform and arrest or just harass people if they see them doing something they think is wrong? Do they even have to have warrants? This is very scary. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize. Last edited by samcol; 09-24-2008 at 06:34 AM..

09-24-2008, 02:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I find it hilarious that they will be called 'sea-smurfs'. And @Will: Honestly, I support the use of free speech zones in many examples. Notably what that church was doing by picketing funerals for American soldiers. Screaming at their family members that they were going to hell because they were defending a country that defended homosexuality. :\.

09-24-2008, 04:01 AM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The division between military and police is a doctrine with a lot of standing and precedent in our country. To have that doctrine shattered, especially at a time when people are beginning to reject the governmental response to a massive financial crisis, is alarming.

09-24-2008, 07:46 AM	#12 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I don't see why anything more than the National Guard should be needed for emergencies. Living in fear like this is a self-perpetuating cycle and I'm more concerned with the military illegally performing law enforcement functions (likely against Americans) than civil unrest or terror attack.

09-24-2008, 08:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	Well, so much for the people uniting and rising up against the Bush administration's $700 billion bail-out plan. This active unit of hardened combat veterans of the Iraq war, now designated to deal with possible (if not probable) civil unrest and crowd control in their home country, will serve well if that bail-out plan doesn't work, where not only is each and every taxpayer left owing the government around $7,000, but our financial system collapses and we're left teetering on the brink of another Great Depression.

09-24-2008, 09:06 AM	#15 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	First, I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support and try to scare people into not voting for McCain. The one video the entire date on it is 2000. that was Clinton's presidency, not Bush's. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. were during Clinton, not Bush. So don't buy the Dem bullshit it's just the "other party" to fear. This is a great scare tactic to get people worked up and to vote for who the creators of the tactic want them to. If this bailout doesn't work and there is a very strong possibility it won't, we may need martial law because during riots and unrest, innocent people get hurt, robbed and killed. I said 4 yrs ago Bush would make sure there was no election and people, even those proclaiming "Martial Law 10/1" laughed and said impossible." Still laughing? I believe that people control their own destinies. If enough believe we are doomed and this will happen, then people will do things to make sure it happens. If people see how fear can manipulate them and choose not to go apeshit and crazy.... then it won't happen. The whole self fulfilling prophecy thing. Finally, I have stated over and over, this election will destroy the party of the person in the office. BOTH candidates are neither qualified to handle this and are surrounded by nutcases wanting power and NOT interested in truly helping the nation rebuild. Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster? Doesn't look good. McCain? The GOP takes the fall they deserve to and in 2012 maybe we get someone like an FDR that can truly rebuild and have vision. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-24-2008, 09:41 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	wait: so first you're claiming that an action which is the prerogative of the administration, which is the bush administration, which is, last time i checked, a republican administration with a demonstrable history of trying to govern from inside a state of emergency---which is not good if you like any trace of that democracy thing---is somehow imputable to obama's campaign? how does that work? and then, further down, you claim: if the melting down of the derivatives industry continues, it FOLLOWS that martial law would be a possibility? which you then pin on the bush administration. what gives? could you explain your argument better? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-24-2008, 10:16 AM	#18 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Just saying, my hope that the American people will ever wake the fuck up is very very small at this point. But perhaps we can sugar coat it with American Idol or something.

09-24-2008, 10:29 AM	#19 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I was just saying that free speech has its limits will. You shouldn't be able to force yourself on others. Posting something in a newspaper? Not forcing yourself on them. Screaming at them at a funeral? Bit different. I think protesting at a convention is something in between...and I understand giving the people a (reasonable) place to voice their opinions. Should they be allowed in the convention hall to hassle the speakers? I hope not for both sides. Should they be allowed right at the entrance to physically impede/scream in the face of people attending? I disagree as well. Across the street would be fine. However, I'm worried that it'll be like a mile away :P xD. And yes, slippery slope on this argument applies in full force, I'm aware :x

09-24-2008, 10:40 AM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The free speech zones are often really, really far away. It's not a matter of hassling the speakers, it's a matter of being completely off the radar. Out of camera view is unacceptable, it's censorship. America is supposed to be a free speech zone.

09-24-2008, 01:51 PM	#22 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I think out of camera view is fine :s. If I'm at the RNC and some crazy liberals want to impugn my candidate, they can do it outside. Vice versa if I was at the DNC with crazy conservatives. (I'm assuming these conventions are inside? I could be gravely mistaken). They detract from the message. THEIR message should still be heard, but separately. The candidates shouldn't be shouting over the voices of their opponents. Its...decency? I dunno the word. It may be a form of censorship, but that's acceptable to me. Putting them far, far away so you don't have to deal with them is unacceptable. You've gotta find the middle ground. Just like security will take away hecklers at a concert, there shouldn't be hecklers at a convention. They can be around the convention, but not directly interfering with the proceedings.

09-24-2008, 04:54 PM	#24 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I wrote a very long-winded reply that didn't really do anything but obfuscate the issue. Point conceded. This is probably unconstitutional to abridge their first amendment rights with free speech zones. Doesn't mean I think there isn't a time and place for that, though. I don't like the idea of carte blanche freedom of speech when it dances the line of hate speech. Not that that has anything to do with this political situation.

09-24-2008, 08:47 PM	#29 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	pan...the point I was making in my response to your first post was that you were the only person posting in this thread to make this about Obama...from your first line (I think this is a scare tactic to get more Obama support) to your last line (Obama is set up for failure if elected.... hmmm the first black president 2 years into office leads us into our worst economic disaster?) The OP and every subsequent post (except yours) is about the role of the military (not the FBI) on US soil and the danger that some here believe it presents. You chose to make it about Obama....not me nor anyone else. You absolutely can frame it anyway you want...and I or anyone else can challenge you on it. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-24-2008 at 08:53 PM..

09-24-2008, 08:52 PM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Neither the video nor the text of the OP has anything whatsoever to do with Senator Obama. I don't appreciate having threads I've started being jacked. This is me asking nicely: please keep the conversations about Senator Obama in the correct threads.

09-24-2008, 10:17 PM	#33 (permalink)
Necrosis Tilted	Is this not exactly the sort of thing the second amendment was designed to protect us against? I suggest stationing such units everywhere the public is restricted from owning firearms. Because the government will protect you.

09-25-2008, 12:25 PM	#36 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	<~~~~~~~~~ standing off to the side to see if I was right. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

09-25-2008, 03:03 PM	#40 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I had this thought today. Do you think that there will be riots in the streets in major cities (Detroit, LA, Atlanta, Chicago,...) if Obama doesn't win? Is that what they are worried about?