Fuck the Police State

[my my my!]

Actually you'd be dead as soon as you fired one shot. Police are armed with Military grade equipment....some even have APC's and tanks these days.

If they barged in uninvited, at the very least the first cop would die. that's why I said maybe the 2nd too and If I'm lucky a 3rd or 4th. but most likely , yes I would die after killing the first one.

[TempestTS]

Did I say that? Let's check. I asked, "Why do parties(notice the plural)...spend billions..." The answer is because we're a democratic-republic with an elected government that is replaced piecemeal on an ongoing basis. VOTES ARE EVERYTHING.

My faith in the system extends only as far as my faith in the electorate, which is depressingly small and all too often willfully ignorant.

In any election in over the past 50 years there have been only two Viable candidates with any reasonable hope of winning - both are heavily sponsored by special interest groups, corporations and banks - bought and paid for. So tell me again how anyones vote matters?

I dont argue that a large chunk of our population is willfully ignorant and lazy and failed to utilize the power of its vote - I argue that the time that the situation could be changed by voting has long slipped through our fingers and you are mistaking a history lesson for the current state of our government.

John Kay - Steppenwolf - "It sure is fun to watch a President run - just ask the man who owns one"

[TempestTS]

If they barged in uninvited, at the very least the first cop would die. that's why I said maybe the 2nd too and If I'm lucky a 3rd or 4th. but most likely , yes I would die after killing the first one.

Actually a man was vindicated as acting in self defense for shooting at police when they executed a "No Knock" warrant and barged in because he had no way to know who it was that burst in.

[Jericho]

Apparently, this is to protect "me".
Gee, thanks...But, no thanks!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28237108

Emergency phone and internet data storage law to be brought in

Nick Robinson explains on Daily Politics why there is a rush to bring in the new law

Emergency legislation will be brought in next week to force phone and internet companies to log records of customer calls, texts and internet use.

Ministers say it is necessary so police and security services can access the data they need after a legal ruling which declared existing powers invalid.

The proposed law has the backing of Labour and the coalition parties.

A special cabinet is being held to agree the planned laws, which will only last until 2016.

Prime Minister David Cameron and his Lib Dem Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will tell a special cabinet meeting on Thursday that emergency legislation is necessary to keep the country safe.

A recent ruling of the European Court of Justice has removed the obligation on telecoms companies to retain records of when and who their customers have called, texted and emailed.

Without a new law Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg will claim that that information could be destroyed within weeks by companies fearing legal challenges.

Labour is backing emergency legislation after all-party talks agreed that this law would enshrine existing rights and not be used to extend them by re-introducing the so-called "snoopers charter".

It will also bring in so-called safeguards including:

The creation of a new Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to examine the impact of the law on privacy and civil liberties
A review of the controversial RIPA - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Annual government transparency reports on how these powers are used
The law will include a so-called sunset clause - ensuring that these powers will die in 2016 - so there will be a longer and wider debate about what replaces them.

Critics will no doubt argue that the time for that debate is now. To pass any new law in just a week is rare. So too is it to have the backing of all three main parties even before it is published.

On a subject as sensitive as giving the police and security services access to phone and internet data this is bound to be controversial.

Update 08:45 BST: The emergency legislation will oblige telecom firms to retain data for 12 months. Under the European law which it replaces companies could be asked to retain data for 24 months.

More controversially the new law will also produce what is being described as a "clearer legal framework" to allow access to the content of calls, texts and emails after a warrant is signed by a senior government minister. Telecoms companies are said to have warned ministers that after the Edward Snowden revelations they are vulnerable to legal challenge by their customers.

The Labour MP Tom Watson has condemned the plans as a "stitch up" which prevent MPs from considering the legislation properly

[Toots1989]

Snip

For us in the UK, it is no surprise really. Seems the current government really is taking George Orwells 1984 to heart + we already pretty much have CCTV on every street. We also have no idea how much we already have been recorded or what extent the NSA/CIA have been spying on people of the UK, let alone those in the USA.

Couple that with the paranoia of having to have charged electrical gadgets on flights leaving/ entering the UK for these 'apparent' new bomb methods.

Police in the UK are gladly mostly not armed. Although doesn't stop them from screwing up or framing people. Death of Mark Duggan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Which Caused London Riots) and Death of Jean Charles de Menezes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Country already on High alert after 7th July 2005 bombings.

[trish]

And why does a candidate need wealthy sponsors? To get their word out to the electorate. Because VOTES ARE EVERYTHING. Why is it so difficult and expensive to get your word out? One would think a simple appeal, a simple set of arguments and counter arguments would do. Why doesn't it? Because the electorate isn't paying attention. Isn't up to date, lazy and distracted. Hence they can be swayed by spin, anecdotes, distortions and lies. Marketing is more expensive than just putting forward a simple argument. We elect the government. If we don't like it, then we don't have to elect the same representatives again.

I agree that currently ours is basically a two party system. But parties can change their faces and be taken over. Both parties have shifted rightward over the last half century. Yet things change. Do you think the legal status of same sex marriage is changing because of evolving political ideologies, or because of the changing attitude of the electorate? The party ideologies will eventually change to accommodate social mores of the electorate. Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes not. But in a democratic-republic like ours, it's the vote that counts.

[TempestTS]

And why does a candidate need wealthy sponsors?
.

To Buy Votes - which is effectively what they are doing.

Cap election spending at 100,000 or simply provide a fixed platform and let everyone argue their case.

Think things would change?

Hell yes and in a big hurry - the system in its current state would crumble as fast as elections were held.

Im not saying that voting cant count - Im saying it currently does not and wont until the whole system is flushed down the toilet and gets to reinvent itself. The current police state has been put in place to keep the population docile and in fear of too much rebellion to keep the system in place.

Why is same sex marriage becoming legal - because its a large body of people with a lot of MONEY that the politicians need to buy elections under the current system - the vote portion is just Symantec at this point, its barely an illusion anymore and most of us know it.

[trish]

Has anyone bought your vote? No one bought mine. Do you really think votes are bought? People can be stupid. They can be swayed by distortions and marketing tricks. But no one is buying votes. No doubt some candidate would like to buy votes. But why would a politician want to buy a vote if votes don't count? There's a conundrum. It's because...

Power resides ultimately in the electorate. Candidates for every office pander to the electorate. Gerrymander the electorate. Spin the electorate. Spend money persuading the electorate. Make promises to the electorate. Lie to the electorate. Flip-flop for the electorate. Shake hands with the electorate and kiss their ugly babies. Special interests, corporations, banks and unions fund these activities. Why? Because the electorate chooses our leaders. They choose their party's leaders, the leaders, judges etc. of their local governments, their State government, their Federal representatives and on up the hierarchy.

[trish]

I do agree with spending caps on political campaigns. I don't vote for candidates who oppose them. Who appointed the Judges who ruled corporations are people and can contribute enormous sums in political campaigns. Don't vote for those guys.

Don't kid yourself. If the general populace wasn't changing its attitude to same sex marriage, there would be no State laws anywhere protecting it, regardless of money. The money is there because social mores are changing, not vice versa.

[trish]

Gotta go. It was fun talking with you.