It is scary as hell. I do not know why the news has not been covering this, they probably figure it is just a small town in a state that rarely has anything going on.
Then you read this"Numerous officers during the recent protests at the G 20 summit in Pittsburgh were unable to be identified by insignia. Undoubtedly, they were contracted by a private agency such as International SOS."
I like that it updated to say this "Update: Justin Elliott of TPMMuckraker reports that APF contracted the facility for purposes of training for law enforcement sniper operations and DNA testing."
I don't buy it and I sure as hell don't like it. Our police forces are supposed to be people who want to protect and serve their communities, NOT paid police who don't even know the areas personally.
Yeah I know I sound paranoid and honestly I feel a little paranoid right now.
No, actually, we Democrats are much closer, philosophically speaking, to Communists than the Republicans are. This isn't about privatization -- that's a red herring. This is about totalitarianism, and we finally got our wish by making people feel good about voting for the black guy. Don't worry, you'll never complain! (Or else.)
Nope, they're real, too. In fact, some of the more rural ones already contain anti-Obama insurgents/insurrectionists we've rounded up for online thoughtcrime. We're mainly focusing on third-party supporters -- they're the true threat, as the Republicans and Democrats are really one big party, and the Republicans are really outdoing themselves in distracting the public from what's really going on.
By the way, don't be surprised if something happens to Glenn Beck by the end of the year!
Why do we always lose focus of the topic and start arguing about the democrats and republicans and what media figures they have put before you to believe....
I think it's pretty funny that in the course of so many of these "convos" the topic of your sunglasses, and how they make you look like one of the Olsen Twins (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/), comes up.
I do think, though, that if you'd develop DT's new-found ability, you'll find that he brought political parties into this "convo," not me.
Although I think we could probably get him to blurt that the Martians altered this forum to make it look like he did -- you know, the ones being hidden from us by the NSA.
Glad to hear you know how to read now -- maybe you could tackle that book I gave you one last time?
By the way, if you were to read a dictionary, you'd see that disseminate doesn't mean what you think it does. You're probably looking for the word "assimilate," though I can understand why you might be shy of that word.
"Ron Paul has stated that government does provide a function which is defined by the Constitution. It is for this purpose that we collectively authorize the government. We do not give authorization with the understanding that these essential functions will be "outsourced", whether by a Democrat or Republican administration."
I know you like the personal attacks, so I will let you have them and not lower myself to your level. After all you have apologized, repeated the action, and apologized again, so you have shown that your emotionally unstable. Typically you do this when you have nothing to add to a good conversation. Most normal people remain silent....but, those are normal people.
Capitalism at its finest. People have been crying and screaming about socialism taking over and they have overlooked the horrors of what true capitalism brings.
If you don't want to get your delicate little feelings hurt, you shouldn't jump into things that don't involve you! DT and I were just fine without you jumping in and hemorrhaging from your genitals all over the place.
I guess that just goes to show you might not understand the "Ron Paul crew."
Also to answer you policing it actually extends all the way up to the government. Your questions makes me question your knowledge of the system. Not hating, I just don't understand your beef.
No, I understand. I know that policing exists on multiple levels, but the title implies a local level.
This is the one thing that Libertarians are wishy washy on. they don't want government, but without proper regulation, you will get private police forces. This is however, not a left/right wing issue, this is fascism. That is, the joining of the state with private enterprise.
I'm a centrist and can see the flaws in libertarian extremist views.
I think that the "Ron Paul Crew" are a mix of fed up Republicans and Democrats who also get the support of most libetarians. So like any other party, there is an extreme side, and a not-so-extreme side. The Rep and Dems have them, and I would assume the Libertarians have them also.
Saying that, I think that there are a lot of people who differ in what they believe more-so than in the Rep. and Dem party. The people in these parties seem to stay along their party line. Vote with the party, support what the party stays, etc...
I think Govt is important. It is set up to protect and provide the basic needs to the population. They key word is basic. When they start running everything, and taking from one group, giving it to another, etc...thats what I have a problem with.
Concerning this situation - a group of people just can not show up one day, say they work with the federal government, and then start driving Mercedes around that say they are police.
Yeah, I have a real problem when people in the federal government take from the taxpayers and give that money to their colleagues in the defense industry, etc. Social welfare is infinitesimally small compared to corporate welfare, but I never seem to hear the Ron Paul crew griping about Fortune 500 companies getting the taxpayers' dollars. They always seem so much more concerned with Ronald Reagan's mythological "welfare queens." That's why it looks to me like Libertarians support the corporatocracy just as much as the Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats do.
I also find it funny that you now are against the fortune 500 companies when just some months ago you saw nothing wrong with the bailouts?
Now is it just JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, and Morgan stantly that you dont mind handing out money to - or are there specific companies on the list that you dont want our money going to. Hmm..
Well, it was recently revealed that the Treasury Department lied on their behalf during the Bush Error -- just another excuse to rob the taxpayer and give to the rich.
However, if we were on the brink of a banking collapse, then yes, I do support government intervention to prevent the toilet-holing of the economy. I know, weird, right?
Wow Ben. Another response bringing the party you hate into it....thats a suprise. And you say it like Obama didnt support the bailouts.
Hate to tell you, we still are on the brink. Oh yea...nevermind, I just checked the news - were not.
And we were soooo on the brink of a banking collapse, that they banks after recieving the bailouts were able to hand out millions in bonuses. Wow...thank God we did something
And you act like I had anything to do with it! Yeah, I called Obama and told him to support the bailout. See, if someone tells you a crisis is looming, and you support doing something to prevent the crisis, and it turns out they were lying, it's your fault for believing them. Just like the Democrats who voted in favor of the Iraq war were at fault for believing the lies Bush told them. Because that's fair.
Try to keep them straight -- Barack Obama, Bush administration, Treasury Department. I know it can be tough, but if you're ever going to truly understand the world, you have to start by acknowledging its complexity.
Its not very hard at all to understand. The problem lies within the mindset that taking taxpayers money at anytime to fund the bankers and wall street giants is a good thing.
No, you didnt have anything to do with it - except for your support of it.
Now, if we were to follow the constitution we wouldnt be in this trouble - would be. Those democrats should have thought to themselves that we dont go to war, without a decliration of war. We dont go to war when we were not attacked. The dem's (and I dont want to leave out most Repubs) ok'd a pre-emtive war. You dont have to believe lies, when you vote for what our founders have guided us with. But...its just a GD peice of paper.
You see, there can be many complex situations, that are handled very easily.
Hold on, let me check CNN - I could be wrong....oh...YIP! All things are ok! Bailout is working, we need to stay in Afghanastan - 40k more troops! Things are good!
"Its not very hard at all to understand. The problem lies within the mindset that taking taxpayers money at anytime to fund the bankers and wall street giants is a good thing."
Even Murray Rothbard argues that loss of confidence in the U.S. banking system contributed to the Great Depression. I repeat my assertion that it is proper for the government to intervene when the country is (or in this case, seems to be) with an economic catastrophe. Sometimes this intervention must take the distasteful form of a bailout. If we really were facing an economic collapse, then bailing out troubled banks was by far the lesser of two evils.
"No, you didnt have anything to do with it - except for your support of it."
Which I have explained, I believe adequately, and which I have also pointed out made no more difference than your opposition to the bailouts did -- that is to say, nothing.
"Now, if we were to follow the constitution we wouldnt be in this trouble - would be."
Can you show me where the Constitution forbids what our government did?
"Those democrats should have thought to themselves that we dont go to war, without a decliration of war. We dont go to war when we were not attacked."
The case made to the Democrats was that Saddam was associated with al Qaeda and that he had WMDs capable of reaching our allies and our own shores. This was coming at a time when people didn't immediately assume that everything the president and his Cabinet said was a lie; we hadn't become that cynical yet as a nation and in fact were far less cynical in the days after 9/11.
"The dem's (and I dont want to leave out most Repubs) ok'd a pre-emtive war."
Technically, they authorized the use of military force to disarm Saddam of WMDs the president had convinced them Iraq had.
"You dont have to believe lies, when you vote for what our founders have guided us with. But...its just a GD peice of paper."
I think that the founders would vote to disarm a country they felt presented an imminent threat to U.S. interests. They weren't shy about risking their lives in the 1770's, after all ...
"Hold on, let me check CNN - I could be wrong....oh...YIP! All things are ok! Bailout is working, we need to stay in Afghanastan - 40k more troops! Things are good!"
“Even Murray Rothbard argues that loss of confidence in the U.S. banking system contributed to the Great Depression. I repeat my assertion that it is proper for the government to intervene when the country is (or in this case, seems to be) with an economic catastrophe. Sometimes this intervention must take the distasteful form of a bailout. If we really were facing an economic collapse, then bailing out troubled banks was by far the lesser of two evils.”
Murray Rothbard said that? Well the F it! I change my mind…NOT. I don’t care.
“Can you show me where the Constitution forbids what our government did?”
It is not my job to teach you about things you have not learned. Google it. Its not that hard. To point you in the right direction, why don’t you look at the bill that was passed by the house to use military force against Iraq. Section 3, paragraph B states that Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq did not follw the UN resolutions and was in possession of WMD. It also needed to prove that Iraq was behind 9-11. Now, since both of those things are not true….well there ya go.
Secondly, artile I, section 8 of the Constitution states that only congress has the power to declare war. The resolution passed by congress did not declare war, but gave President Bush the decision to go to war.
I think that the founders would vote to disarm a country they felt presented an imminent threat to U.S. interests. They weren't shy about risking their lives in the 1770's, after all ..
No they wouldn’t. But then again, they wouldn’t have tried to take over the world which lead to everyone hating us
You're not right. Look up the evidence that was presented to Congress by the Bush administration -- the discrepancies between what Bush gave Congress and what the intelligence community gave Bush. Bush abused a system that was formerly based on trust; besides that, it's illegal to lie to Congress, and Bush should be prosecuted for it. http://abcnews.go.com/
Don't take my withdrawal from the debate as an admission of defeat. I just prefer not to debate this with you any more, OK?
I was speaking about the illegal war, not what decisions was made for the vote. I was citing the constitution and the bill congress passed, and you come back with a news article. Please. I dont care why who voted what. Its illegal.
Yeah, it was illegal, but your whole point was that the resolution gave Bush the authority to declare war. It did not; it gave him authority to use military force -- there is, obviously, a massive difference between a war and a military operation.
You also insinuated that Congress accepted insufficient proof from Bush before authorizing him to use the military. Again, you are wrong; it is unreasonable to expect Congress to assume that the president lies about matters of national security, and if you read up on the differences between what the CIA et al gave Bush and what he gave Congress, they're big -- on the order of changing "Iraq may be seeking to enrich uranium" to "Iraq is seeking to enrich uranium."
Well, I thought the debate was getting kind of boring, just having to correct you on all these factual matters. But then you started in with your really obvious attempt to provoke me, and it got interesting again.
You can circle talk, and word smith - but if you think you are correcting me at all, you seriously have issues. I think you should follow your first instinct and cease the conversation, before you realize yourself you dont know what your talking about.
Ah, what's the expression? "There are none so blind as those who will not see" -- I can prove my point over and over and you'll never be able to admit you're wrong, because you just hate me so much.
It's OK, you can tell how you're doing by who hates you just as well as by who likes you, and I'm doing fine.
You've always fancied yourself as some sort of expert on government and politics, and you've never let things like not knowing that the White House Chief of Staff can't be appointed Speaker of the House get in your way, so I doubt anybody will ever really get through to you : )
I would like you to visit the thread Military Force VS War, and give us your thoughts on this....since your oppinion is that I manipulated the constitution.
