Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos
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.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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"
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by my my my!
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
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.
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.
To Buy Votes - which is effectively what they are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
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.
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.
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.
Gotta go. It was fun talking with you.
Once again voting is just semantics these days - its the high powered expensive ad campaign that does the trick - hell the last 4 elections actually had news agencies talking about how much the other candidate needed to spend to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Did they buy your vote? - not likely -
Did they buy mine? - not for a long time but Im guilty of listening to the hype on occasion.
Did they buy millions of other votes all across the country - hell yes - believe anything else and I'd call you ignorant and you dont seem to be that.
Why would they want to buy votes - they only do it because granting the people the illusion that their voice counts is extremely valuable to any leader anywhere in the world - even dictators talk about being instrument of the voice of their people, its just a bit more of a clear cut lie in their case - we here in 'merica prefer to keep our lack of individual power well concealed behind the smoke and mirrors of the election game.
back to the point at hand - the police state serves to make sure the people in power stay in power - thats why you see protests of McDonalds, Disneyland and the Occupy Movement met with such mass police force.
You can camp out all night long to buy the new playstation or Xbox - or you can stand in line for days for an NFL ticket but just dont try to camp over night if your protesting Wallstreet or you will be arrested and if you are upside down on your mortgage the police show up to make sure the bank gets to take your house.
Little fact - there are more foreclosed Empty homes in the US than there are homeless people - and homelessness is being made a crime - how Fucked up is that ? so yes fuck the system and especially fuck the police state for being a tool of the banks and corporations.
From PolicestateUSA.com
Police faked 9-1-1 phone calls to warrantlessly search homes
Officers entered properties by claiming emergency calls were made, except they weren't.
DURHAM, NC — A dubious police tactic has come to light, in which officers used falsified information in order to gain ‘consent’ to search private properties without a warrant.
Officers in Durham have apparently discovered that they can create the legal pretext for a search by lying about calls to 9-1-1 emergency services that never actually took place. The tactic is apparently legal — and commonplace — according to an officer’s sworn statements. WTVD-TV explains:A Durham police officer admitted under oath that he lied in order to gain entry to a home and to serve an outstanding warrant.The tactic was pervasive enough for the Durham police chief to issue a department memo immediately calling for its disuse:
During a court hearing last May, court officials say he told a District Court judge that it was a common practice within Durham’s police department.
He said he knocked on a resident’s door, claiming police had received a 9-1-1 hang up call. But, it never happened.It has recently been brought to my attention that some officers have informed citizens that there has been a 911 hang-up call from their residence in order to obtain consent to enter for the actual purpose of looking for wanted persons on outstanding warrants. Effective immediately no officer will inform a citizen that there has been any call to the emergency communications center, including a hang-up call, when there in fact has been no such call.Chief Lopez deserves credit for rejecting the practice within his department. But the situation is troubling and raises many questions. But how pervasive is the tactic elsewhere? What can protect people in other jurisdictions from being searched using deception?
– Jose L. Lopez, Sr., Chief of Police
Is this one of those situations that qualifies as an “unreasonable search” which is prohibited under the 4th Amendment?
See more details regarding the Durham case via WTVD-TV:
Accountability Checkhttp://www.policestateusa.com/wp-con...ndBlinking.gif
Durham Police Department (North Carolina)
Homeland security and Swat swarm small town school grounds in unannounced show of force http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-feds-swarm-small-town-in-bizarre-unannounced-show-of-force/ …
Semantics establishes the connection between words and their meanings. To twist the semantics is to twist and distort the truth. That's exactly what the claim that Americans are selling their votes is: a distortion and a falsehood. I agree that many Americans are stupid, are easily snookered and fooled into voting against their interests. But this is so because their votes count.Quote:
Once again voting is just semantics these days - its the high powered expensive ad campaign that does the trick - hell the last 4 elections actually had news agencies talking about how much the other candidate needed to spend to win.
This is pure nonsense and you know it. Votes are tallied. They're checked. When the count is close they're challenged and recounted. To the winner of popular vote (with the sole exception of the office of president) goes the office.Quote:
Why would they want to buy votes - they only do it because granting the people the illusion that their voice counts is extremely valuable to any leader anywhere in the world - even dictators talk about being instrument of the voice of their people, its just a bit more of a clear cut lie in their case - we here in 'merica prefer to keep our lack of individual power well concealed behind the smoke and mirrors of the election game.
Too many people today are willing to spend their money and waste their time storing ammo and stockading guns, fantasizing about a never to be realized revolution against taxes and the government, but ask them to run for local office where they can make a difference or just take part in the political process and it's "I'm too busy, besides I'll have no real effect and besides nobody's vote counts, they're all bought." That's bull.
Why do politicians campaign for your vote? It's simple. They need it (they need a lot of them) to acquire (or to stay in) office.
You say Americans are not selling their vote but have already acknowledged that they are largely influenced by which of the two biggest spenders tells them a lie closest to what they want to hear.
Spending = media = mental attitudes = votes
And you said it wasnt about semantics... I beg to differ
When the manipulated in such fashion the tally of the votes is little more than book keeping to see which of the biggest spenders won which renders the actual action meaningless.
Revolutions happen every day - As I recall the British Empire thought a revolution in the colonies was an impossible dream as well.
Why did Jesse Ventura refuse to run for president - because as an independant he lacks the major funding to get the media attention to get in the debates or stand a reasonable chance of reaching enough people to ever win. Without money it cant be done - now why would money matter - oh yeah because it is used to buy media campaigns - the vote is purely academic at this point.
Want me to prove my point - when was the last time someone other than the Two major parties won a presidential election???
Yeah i thought so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
If your point is that Americans are selling their votes, then you failed to prove it, Jesse Venture notwithstanding. Of course we have a two party system. So what? We should get out the guns and have a revolution because third party candidates like Ralph Nader and wannabes like Jesse Ventura are unlikely to win? Thank the Gods they're unlikely to win.
Money buys media time. (I prefer to use the equality sign for what is actually means...that's semantics) Media time increases contact with voters. Why do that? Because VOTES COUNT. Elections are held to elect leaders.
The ultimate power is with the electorate, if they'd would only recognize it. If a people are too lazy to do the research; too lazy to take part in the political life of their municipality, state and nation; too lazy to govern themselves, then they will be governed by those people who have the initiative to do so.
Citizens are not selling their votes - but the votes are being bought just the same. The wealthy and the powerful along with corporations and banks and the politicians they pay to get in office see the public as a commodity - dont think for a second they dont, look at any demographic spread sheet.
elections are held to give the illusion that we as individuals have some say in government - we dont - millions and millions have been outraged at the actions of the NSA - anything changed - nope they just refuse to comment on their actions. Courts rules that the no fly list and appeal process was unconstitutional but its still in effect - they just are ignoring the judges.
Money equates to media which equates to influence which in turn generates votes. ie Money is the only thing that matters in the whole equation take it out and you get nothing that follows it which renders Votes purely a result of money spent. I prefer use = because I prefer the purity of mathematics and logic as opposed to mincing words for things that they are not.
They people who have incentive to govern are the powers behind the money - the politicians are puppets to corporations and banks which wield the real power and influence. Most of the nation freely admits knowing this regardless of which political party they are with. You however seem to be holding onto a dream long past... I admire you for that and I wish it was so - its simply not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
1) Politicians have the power the electorate gives them.
2) Corporations have the money to shower the media with propaganda.
3) The electorate is easily influenced by propaganda high production values.
Neither of these negate the other. (2) and (3) do not make (1) false. In the U.S. the electorate is the key. You must win the electorate.
You have a gun. Two crowds are screaming, "Shoot Mr. X...NO! Shoot Mr. Y". The crowds do their best to make their own request seem seductive and smart, and the alternative stupid and destructive. They may even offer you money, rewards and power. In the end, the decision is still yours.
You say your vote doesn't count. I say it counts too much. The electorate is way too small. More people need to get involved. Shouting nonsense like "votes don't count" is counterproductive to democratic ends.
This is nothing more than a history lesson on how things used to work at a previous point and time.
Let me provide the logic lesson when one value becomes equal to another they are interchangeable in an equation. Money buys/equals media - media buys/equals influence - influence results in votes - therefore Money buys Votes. I just cut out the middle parts that you dont seem to want to look at.
The way the numbers work out today make the individual decision moot because the tide has already turned.
If you want it to matter things must be reset to the point where it will - that is what I purpose.
The definition of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Shouting Votes Dont count is simple logic. You cant fix a problem if you are unaware that there IS a problem.
I want different results therefore different actions are called for.
To keep this on topic - the police state has been strengthened because those who hold the power and the puppets that serve their cause know that we the people are coming to realize this and rebellion and revolution will be the eventual outcome so they want to have a strong police state in place to repress that as long as possible and stomp it out every time the fire of freedom burns a bit too brightly in the populous spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The flaws in this argument are many. One is the substitution of a transitive relation (namely "equality") for two other binary relations (namely "buys" and "results") neither of which is "equality" one of which is not even transitive. This isn't logic, it's sophistry. It also confuses the notion of influencing an action and purchasing an action. It make a fine metaphor, but one that turns ugly when used to depress the vote. Then it just plays into the hands of the influential. Don't be played. It turns even uglier when used to foment violent overthrow of our elected government.Quote:
Let me provide the logic lesson when one value becomes equal to another they are interchangeable in an equation. Money buys/equals media - media buys/equals influence - influence results in votes - therefore Money buys Votes. I just cut out the middle parts that you dont seem to want to look at.
I dont advocate violence - revolution does not need to be a violent act although it often is of necessity due to those who wish to continue to hold on to control and power against what the populous wishes - once again research Iceland's recent change in their governing structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Icleland's revolution was peaceful - we just didnt hear about it in the media
now ask yourself "Why not" and then ask yourself who controls the media... and then you have your answer to where power lies.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...olution-quiet/
You seem to think the vote has power - I agree that It did and it should - I simply face the truth that its gone except of a slim shadow made of smoke and mirrors and think something must be done to get it back. Something our founding fathers also believed just in a different era but things were all to much the same - the issue then was taxation (and being governed) without any real representation. I argue that its become the same and to change that some form of revolution is required.
The system is broken and must be reinvented and refreshed, the police state (which you dont seem to even mention) exists to protect that broken system so they too must be removed from positions of unjust power and replaced with a system for which the position was originally intended.
When peaceful protests of banks and corporations are met with violent paramilitary opposition who do you think is being Protected and Served? Its not the people, its not the voters...
In an election with millions of people voting, the percentage chance that your vote is the decisive one is infinitesimally small. But that doesn't mean that money alone buys elections. It buys exposure. But I have seen a tremendous number of local elections where a candidate loses despite outspending his rival four or five to one. And the potential still exists for financially powerful candidates to lose to those with a good grassroots operation in national elections as well.
Do we have a two party system? That's how the interests have aggregated. But if there were a third option that had enough support that third party could presumably win elections. One problem is that the major parties do not want to bifurcate and lose support in the process...but that is just a strategic choice to hug the median view for the greatest chance of success in elections.
I also think that political parties have to respond to changes in the social environment. Republicans have lost ground when it comes to dictating to the public their homophobic agenda and as a result they tread more lightly on the issue. They have certainly reacted to public disapproval to moderate their views. They no longer seek to outlaw consensual homosexual intercourse (part of that has to do with Supreme Court precedent). But do you think their evangelical supporters are okay with them giving up that fight? Probably not. And their most extreme members could form a third party based on the strictest interpretation of traditional values, but they would guarantee a win for the Democratic party by dividing up the big tent.
So a major reason third parties do not have a reasonable chance of success in national elections is that people are too afraid of cannibalizing the vote of their closest major party. And there are many ways to raise money and awareness at the grassroots level. Social change takes place incrementally, but just as monied interests can influence people, the collective public can influence the message of our political candidates by participating in the political process.
Summary: activism works not by directly influencing the outcome of an upcoming election but by educating people about social issues. This information flows upwards to political candidates who ultimately have to appeal to the public. Is some information dictated from the top down? Of course, but there are also many organizations that work within communities across the country, helping to bring various social and economic issues into the public consciousness. A political party cannot campaign on a message people find morally repugnant no matter how much money they have.
What a lot of people who claim our system is undemocratic are really objecting to is the process of norming. People often do not vote on single issues and with major parties taking a strategic tack, they will have to find the closest approximation of their views. Just because you don't see a political candidate who embodies every single one of your preferred views does not mean the political process has failed.
You do realize that our elected officials lie to the public on a ongoing and regular basis and that faith in the governing body is at an all time low for the history of our country... and it continues to plummet.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I dont think the political system has failed because I disagree with it - I think it has failed because the population in general disagrees with it regardless of party.
Both of these are immutable facts confirmed by countless surveys and polls - no need to make anything up here. Its Simple.
When someone resorts to making a statement and saying "it's simple" they break faith with any attempt to reason logically.Quote:
Originally Posted by TempestTS
An election is won by the person who receives the most votes. That doesn't guarantee people are going to be satisfied with the candidate's performance by the end of their term.
A critical mass of people control who is elected by voting for indirect representatives. That's the way our system was set up. A lot of people are unhappy with the outcome of hundreds of decisions made by hundreds of representatives at the legislative level. That's not surprising.
I can't imagine the polling results you speak of have been rigorously designed and adhered to for the full 225 years since the Constitution was adopted in 1789 and thereby give any sense of people's satisfaction over that period. I am fairly sure that President Lincoln had a low approval rating in the South during the Civil War but I could be wrong there.
Yes. I see the dream now. Three hundred million people in a nation as large as a continent will stage a bloodless coup disbanding the three branches of government. It will be Iceland writ large. Together we will rewrite our Constitution using tweets and facebook. Looking over the deep and ponderous comments one typically finds on twitter and facebook, I gotta wonder what that final document will look like.
(BTW:Iceland maintains a Coast Guard and few special forces, but it has no standing military. Unfortunately we have the largest standing military in the world. I wonder if we can count on it remaining on the sidelines while through tweets and whistles we reconstruct our legal framework?)
Really? I don't see that at all. I think this is a clear case of projection.Quote:
I dont think the political system has failed because I disagree with it - I think it has failed because the population in general disagrees with it regardless of party.
Here's an immutable fact: The majority of Americans at one time disfavored Obamacare and favored the Affordable Care Act. Careful how you interpret polls. The only polls that count are the ones that determine governmental offices.
To the point of our two party system: Those parties are not immutable. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights act, the Democratic Party lost a majority of its southern membership to the Republican Party. Both underwent gigantic ideological shifts as a result. The Tea Baggers are doing an effective job today of changing the face of the GOP from within. (Cantor recently lost his seat in a primary to a Tea Bagger) That's what the Greens should've done rather than running Ralph Nader; i.e. take over the party structure from within.
In the end, it's your vote politicans pander for. It your vote that grants them office. It's your vote they're spending millions of dollars to try to win. Yes, they would love it if the electorate were smaller and more demographically predictable. Too many of us don't recognize that we're holding the very thing everybody is going apeshit trying to acquire: votes.
Police won't even let us carry cash now, evidently.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...y-tenaha-texas
Please, feel free to shut down and take over the government of the State of Texas. Rewrite the state constitution on twitter. A hundred and forty characters is about all Rick Perry's brain can parse.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_unnatural
Hey whats that over there... oh its the point you seemed to have missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
You seem to think Im speaking about a singular elected official - Im referring to peoples faith in the governing body as a whole.
If I confined polling results to "data available from recorded history" would that make you happy? - the results are still just the same and cover nearly as much time, so its fine by me.
In addition "its simple" is an attempt to distill nearly 8 pages of logical lengthy reason to a central point. If I haven't reached you by now I wont be able to.
Dont worry - IF I am wrong everything is fine and bound to improve - there are no risks to your personal freedoms and Im sure an elected official who truly has the peoples best interest at heart will be along any day now... mimimum wage will start to go up in proportion to CEO pay, the homeless will be taken care of, we will cease to spend thousands of times more on needless military spending than we do on care for our citizens and the national debt will be wiped out nearly over night. Rainbows and puppies for everyone type of stuff.
Trust me if Im wrong I will be quite grateful and I dont lose a bit of sleep worrying about what would happen if my conclusions are incorrect - my best wish is that they are.
I worry about what if Im right?
This Politics and Religion section isn't very good when there aren't any elections coming up, if you're on a TS site and you're Republican, I can only marvel at what is going on inside your head. In the upcoming US elections, I'm almost hoping the Republicans take the Senate, Obama's a lame duck, maybe republicans trying to destroy the economy for two years will give Hillary all three branches in twenty -o-sixteen.
People have it just good enough.......they're not going to get out of their LaZboys to change things. If they do get amped up they'll just try and make more money. This has been the story of Western Civilization for thousands of years.
Number One Street Survival Law- never put your hands on a cop.
Wait for the elections. Vote Democratic. Choose a city, state, or country that best suits you and move there.
Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents
Grandma repeatedly protested drones at base, now faces a year in jail
Protests reportedly peaceful; judge won't let her "thumb her nose at the law once again."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...ear-in-prison/
Jury nullification is really our only hope, the way I see it, since the entire system seems to be out of order. They're executing no-knock warrants for buying potting soil. Taking DNA samples at checkpoints.
http://news.yahoo.com/kansas-couple-...182449463.html
http://rt.com/usa/police-dna-swabs-r...heckpoint-405/
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces: Radley Balko: 9781610392112: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518lS5g5o9L.@@AMEPARAM@@518lS5g5o9L
No knock warrants are rising to ridiculous levels and the times when they find nothing there is no accountability for either judge or the investigating officer that requested the warrant. Property is being destroyed, people are being hurt, pets killed and its all in wholesale rejection of our constitutional rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_unnatural
Whats even scarier is the "Sneak and peek" warrant where cops use otherwise criminal means to enter a residence just so they can look around while the owner isnt there. No notice is given, no paperwork is ever provided, property can be seized just to see if it pertains to an investigation all with the express purpose of concealing the fact that they were ever there. If nothing that can be easily prosecuted is found they simply never speak about it again and somebody has stuff that just "vanished" - money, electronics, valuables... ect just vanish into a police state black hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Your right a nonviolent revolution clearly isnt possible -Silly me... Ghandi, Civil rights, Martin Luther King, the Woman's rights movement... clearly never happened its all a myth.
and then this ...
The way I remember it, the slide began with the MADD push, which brought us "safety checkpoints." Then, with the war on drugs, they started with the search of vehicles without consent by claiming to "smell marijuana" (I think stats should be kept to see how many searches based on smell found nothing.). Throw in 9-11 and you have a giant police-state snowball running out of control.
Citizens' rights to film police do offer some hope. Even that has been a struggle. It wasn't till this year that Illinois' anti-eavesdropping laws were overturned. Under that law it was even a crime to record the sound of a crowd at a football game.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5003308.html
Yeah, stop those fascist mothers against drunk driving! They're fucking ruining the country for the sake of a few useless children. The world's overpopulated anyway.
A shit storm of paranoia is turning so many Americans into lunatics.
That's what you got out of that, Trish?
No. There's also the GIANT police state snowball running OUT OF CONTROL along with the International Jewish Conspiracy and the fascist AFT blockade of the Bundy Ranch.Quote:
Originally Posted by the_unnatural
I can't count how many times I got stopped for driving while black. But let a little old grandma get her white ass thrown in jail (for repeatedly trespassing on a military base when there was the equivalent of a court order telling her not to do it so) and suddenly we're living in a police state, a fucking police state, no...a giant fucking police state snowballing out of control. Right. I totally agree. Last time I voting for a Muslim.