MGB: Police state USA?

ABC reporter arrested for taking photos of Democratic senators meeting with lobbyists
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1

Raids on homes where RNC protesters were meeting:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/31/raids/index.html

EVERY government in history has slid into tyrrany. It's human nature.
The design of the Constitution was an attempt by the Founders to prevent that.
Unfortunately the majority of the American people don't understand it.

You can clearly see that police are acting to prevent DISSENT against the government.
Don't forget that patriotism is TO THE PEOPLE and to the PRINCIPLES that a nation was founded on, NOT to the government.

It's up to the rest of us Americans to spread awareness to prevent it from happening.

Do you notice that there's very little coverage in the mass media of this shit that's going on?
Instead it's more about Amy Winehouse's addiction, or Obama farting or McCain's Geritol. Do either of them even talk about this?

I know I'm a leftie... and I should be incensed, but the story of police stopping a bus load of protesters, offloading everyone... and then driving away with the bus... ROFLMAO

But don't worry... we have the Patriot Act to protect us!

Steve64B Wrote:

Quote: "
I know I'm a leftie... and I should be incensed, but the story of police stopping a bus load of protesters, offloading everyone... and then driving away with the bus... ROFLMAO
But don't worry... we have the Patriot Act to protect us!
"

Yea, but did you see how that one reporter was man handled and pushed around by that bigger cop. Take another look. The guy could barely get word out. Be afraid!

Ernest, do you think the two are comparable. There was a similar one to the ABC problem but I could not find it to use as an adder to what you are saying. The Salon one is a little difficult to swallow because most of his article does not have many facts mostly "apparaently and I think" type words.

However it is a fine line when the group is going to do damage to property and people. Do you interdict the effort or let it happen and then deal with it.

Based on his books he has been a critic of Bush and executive power and your post is a good example of the difference between Bush, McCain and Obama. Bush McCain will interupt and try to stop it. Obama similar to Clinton will allow it to happen and then look for the guility party. The fine line is rights, safety and trust. It is a difficult one to argue.

Steve, I am getting a real education today, I know not to look for a chess board in the sporting goods department, I know not ask about R and T when getting a massage and now you have thrown another one. What does ROFLMAO stand for it is decent.

.....I think I am going to puke.............you guys have been AWOL for........ Ummm....... forever, and all of a sudden you are incensed by the cops in MSP...... I would love to say...Welcome to the Frey......but I am sure you are rather ....picky... in your outrage's.

Richard, rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

Brian, I hope it is because of my ignorance about terms and not one of my serious posts. That would cause me to go back to the books.

6863m Wrote:

Quote: "
Steve, I am getting a real education today, I know not to look for a chess board in the sporting goods department, I know not ask about R and T when getting a massage and now you have thrown another one. What does ROFLMAO stand for it is decent.
"

Food for thought gentlemen, food for thought. Do with it what you will.

6863m Wrote:

Richard... I'll have to find the thread about chess boards... but if you're getting a message never ever mention ROFLMAO... it will cost you really BIG bucks!

And that's why we come here... there's still so much left to learn!

Steve

6863m Wrote:

Quote: "
Brian, I hope it is because of my ignorance about terms and not one of my serious posts. That would cause me to go back to the books.
"

I think you are still not quite getting it, Richard:

(R)olling (O)n (T)he (F)loor (L)aughing (M)y (A)ss (O)ff :)

...........6863m,....I don't know what it means either......thank F%$#@*ing Gawd.....there are some things once learned, that turn into a case of instant Cooties.

Police State? F*****G -A!

The south border fence isn't to keep Mexicans out - it's to keep us in! Along with the Canadians...

Up until the late 70's you could do a lot of things that cops used to have a sense of humor about. Now, do the the same thing and it is a terroristic threat, and off to Gitmo with you!

Decline of the (Roman) Empire...

Read Twigs sig

6863m Wrote:

Quote: "

Based on his books he has been a critic of Bush and executive power and your post is a good example of the difference between Bush, McCain and Obama. Bush McCain will interupt and try to stop it. Obama similar to Clinton will allow it to happen and then look for the guility party. The fine line is rights, safety and trust. It is a difficult one to argue.
"

Richard,
Glenn Greenwald has been a critic of this administration as is his right. History will show a radical expansion of Executive power under Bush/Cheney and a sevre curtailment of the civil rights of the citizenry. It's doubtful that the next president, be it McCain or Obama will cede the power seized by the current administration, people don't tend to do that. So we'll just have to get used to being a bit more like East Germany than we were before :(

Two quotes to ponder re being a critic of the Executive and the balance we strike between security and freedom:

From Theodore Roosevelt:
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

From Benjamin Franklin (and this is key):

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Police state....Anybody here remember the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago?

I do...I thought the US was going down during those days.

Dennis,

Don't you think it has? Little bit at a time!

Dave

Rod, thanks DUH.

Marc, interesting that you would mention Ben Franklin and I wonder what he would do in the war on terror. Given his history he would have unleashed war on those trying to hurt our citizens. I would agree none of the founders would have trusted the other with much individual power and he was afraid of the power of the President.

Do you see a similarity with what Rosevelt said and was referring to as discent against Bush and the reality of what is going on and hate speech. Should we try to understand the difference in what and how the President has to operate. How do you think Rosevelt did trying to get judges appointed or his staff. Almost imppossible today so we have to use recess appointments.

I read a book which I gave my Grandson to read and it was a book where they took the founders and all their letters and tried to do just what you did with Franklin and applied todays problems it was very interesting. "What would the Founders do".

If you haven't read Orwell's 1984 in a while, now would be a good time.

6863m Wrote:

Quote: "
Rod, thanks DUH.
Marc, interesting that you would mention Ben Franklin and I wonder what he would do in the war on terror. Given his history he would have unleashed war on those trying to hurt our citizens. I would agree none of the founders would have trusted the other with much individual power and he was afraid of the power of the President.[/quote]

He might well have made war on those trying to hurt our citizens. Now what does Iraq have to do with that?
[quote]Do you see a similarity with what Rosevelt said and was referring to as discent against Bush and the reality of what is going on and hate speech. [/quote]
Hate speech? Greenwald?

[quote] Should we try to understand the difference in what and how the President has to operate. How do you think Rosevelt did trying to get judges appointed or his staff. Almost imppossible today so we have to use recess appointments."

Much of what Bush has done has been contrary to the founders' intent including the abuse of recess appointments, signing statements, flouting the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus. Afer all he was the one who said:

"There ought to be limits to freedom."
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
" If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... ...just so long as I'm the dictator"

Was he joking? Partly maybe.

Marc, I have already given many posts on why Iraq is important in the war on terror and just a part and a rung on the ladder. We will never agree.

No I was not referring to Greenwald about the hate speech but I have not read much if anything he has written just the hate Bush speeches over the past several years.

Bush has to manage Government and the Democrats will not approve his appointments because of politics. The founders knew some President might have a Senate with the likes of Leahy and Reid and had to have a way for the President to somehow get people to do the work. It is why they put a limit on the term to not allow abuse. It should make no difference to you or I because it is temporary.

Quote: " ...........6863m,....I don't know what it means either......thank F%$#@*ing Gawd.....there are some things once learned, that turn into a case of instant Cooties."

dte948:

Yeah...I do...I believe it is that "Creeping Socialism" that is becoming more and more evident.

Mr. Obama reeks of it!

Dennis

What about the camps or facilities Blackwater has here in the US

TVRPaul,

I live in San Diego county and are you talking about the training facilities they put up for training security people. They are debating the issue in our county government and the neighbors. There are articles in the paper and when you get thourgh all the anti war slogans and conspiracy stuff it is pretty straight forward.

They are going to be used in future conflicts regardless what we may think and regardless which administration. In my opinion with the volunteer Army already in place it is not a stretch or risk to use them.

I also believe it is a cheaper alternative to use contractors who surge the resource and when you are done they do not continue to cost the taxpayer or stretch the logistics of the Military. I would think our only concern should be the mission and that is DOD driven and can be dealt with.

Our soldiers are so well trained in the combat arms today compared to past years as to not be comparable. Maybe we should not consume that training and capability for security and logistics.

Richard

Thanks for your posting in response to my posting, Re: Blackwater, I am on the other coast so I will defer to you, you live there

Return to Archive Index | Live Forums Front Page | Website Front Page

Please note this is an archived discussion.
If you would like to add a comment or question please follow this link:
Live discussion: MGB: Police state USA?