Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

    This guy is he runs may be getting my vote in 16, for like many older americans, I am fed up with the militarization of our police forces who are in place to protect and serve americans. Yet the image they willingly give us, is not this image.

    Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

    This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment
    Of course where this is currently being seen in full view is in the way the police reacted against protests and looting that followed the Ferguson Missouri killing of a black teen, who with a friend was walking in the middle of a street in an almost all black town outside of St. Louis. This is a bad habit that you see here everyday in my town, blacks walking in the middle of residential streets instead of on the edge. I have seen this behavior for years and always wondered what the purpose was. But that is not the purpose of this thread, but rather the militarized police forces that the war on drugs and the war on terror(I hate that term) have produced with the aid of the federal gov't.

    Rand Paul is the only republican that seems to be concerned with this, and that won't do him any good in republican primaries, for the republicans don't know the difference between a civilian police force and a special ops military force. And they feel good about the war on drugs, which has created this destructive mentality of police forces all across this nation.

    The sad thing is, Paul like his dad doesn't stand a chance in hell of ever getting into the oval office, for he is not a defender of the military industrial complex, nor of the current oligarchy with its militarized police forces. Yet still, if enough people, with a grassroots movement, much greater than the tea people get involved, due to a refusal to accept what has been allowed to happen with our police, and who see what the war on terror and the war on drugs has turned my country into, perhaps we can cut the head off of this beast that rules America today. I have little hope of that, for the propaganda, the entrenched lack of representation, and ill educated americans will keep us in the dark, and the corrupt, destructive status quo in place.

    Senator Rand Paul on Ferguson: We Must Demilitarize the Police - TIME

    Anyways, I think I found a man who I can support in 16 and that man is Rand Paul, who is not an old time liberal like me, but who stands for much of what I believe in when it comes to this very important matter that speaks to a free America, and the right of the American people to not be under the heel of a militarized police force that looks like they belong in a foreign nation fighting our enemies. Are the American people now the enemy? Well, if you look at the police, that seems to be a questioned that is answered.

    Time to stop the war on drugs, the war on terror, for both should never have been waged in the first place, as a way to usurp our freedom and experience what an authoritarian gov't looks like, and what we lost millions of lives fighting against in the past. America has become what we used to detest.

  • #2
    Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

    Anyway, if a bunch of thugs want a brawl, I don't see why the police should have to make it a fair fight.

    The police are charged with protecting the lives and properties of everyone. By destroying the town, the mob is collectively doing exactly what they are accusing one officer of doing... overreacting destructively against the innocent without sufficient evidence. But I'm sure that irony is lost on the the brotha's in da hood.

    Originally posted by Benjamin Franklin
    Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

      Originally posted by Commodore View Post
      [ATTACH]15376[/ATTACH]
      Anyway, if a bunch of thugs want a brawl, I don't see why the police should have to make it a fair fight.

      The police are charged with protecting the lives and properties of everyone. By destroying the town, the mob is collectively doing exactly what they are accusing one officer of doing... overreacting destructively against the innocent without sufficient evidence. But I'm sure that irony is lost on the the brotha's in da hood.
      This works up until the SWAT team raids the wrong house, causing needless damage and trauma, which they've done a bit too often to my liking.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
        This guy is he runs may be getting my vote in 16...
        Never going to happen. You'll NEVER vote for a Republican...

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

          Yep, your police sure are kitted up and make even our tactical response units look puny.
          I realise the fact that our police are strapped for cash is one reason but we only had armoured vans for terrorist situations or the odd riot.
          we certainly don't routinely roll out the SWAT teams and the Olympics was unusual as it had officers with guns on public patroll.

          Even the vast number of military personel who were drafted in to help security were unarmed and if I'd trust anyone with a gun it would be them.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
            This works up until the SWAT team raids the wrong house, causing needless damage and trauma, which they've done a bit too often to my liking.
            True enough, though that has more to do with basic competence and investigation, and less to do with the tools of the trade. No-knock warrants however are a poor substitute for technology and firepower. I have a hard time believing that a perp can destroy all incriminating evidence under duress in the era of forensic science, and firepower should overcome any ad-hoc defenses

            Of course, in a perfect world, people could have their hobbies without hurting the general public, and the public would have no need to regulate said hobbies. See Franklin's comments above.
            Last edited by Commodore; 08-15-2014, 12:10 PM.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              Never going to happen. You'll NEVER vote for a Republican...
              Wrong again! Paul doesn't look like a republican, nor does he believe in what the conservative republicans believe in. I think he is the better of the two when compared to his father, who I respect a great deal, although I don't agree with him on some issues. But on the really important issues, some of the ones that have hurt my nation internally, that arose from republicans wanting to control people, just as the liberals do, but perhaps in different areas, I very much agree with the Pauls.

              More of the same old crap will only lead us deeper into the abyss, and more of the same old crap is what both mainstream dems and repubs stand for.

              All I want is some good old common sense being exercised by the president, and the end to the war on drugs and terror, for both are fabrications used to strip americans of freedoms we have previously enjoyed.

              Paul is doing some odd things, from the republican viewpoint, like speaking before young people in the capitol of the loony left, Berkely. But we know that his father attracted the younger crowd, and he will as well. The enemy to Paul of course is the republican party, the one that is gonna be in the dustbins of history due to the change in demographics created by open borders and high birth rates.

              Yet the voter still has some control, if they would exercise it, but too many are in the two party denial paradigm, where they still believe the repubs and dems are actually real choices, when the only real choice lies in someone like Paul, who is trying to use the two party system, instead of going outside it.

              I don't imagine you, the type of republican you are, would ever vote for Paul, for he isn't representing what the GOP stands for, in action. Just his stance on the war on drugs and us being the world's police force is enough to send you running away, for you demand that we continue on with both, and its very important to people like yourself. That none of those work, that they waste human lives and trillions of dollars isn't enough to get you to change your mind. Which is the mark of a true ideologue.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                I don't imagine you, the type of republican you are...
                Wrong again BD... I'd vote for Rand WAAAAYYYYY before I'd vote for Hilary or ol' Joe, or the Indian princess.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  Yep, your police sure are kitted up and make even our tactical response units look puny.
                  I realise the fact that our police are strapped for cash is one reason but we only had armoured vans for terrorist situations or the odd riot.
                  we certainly don't routinely roll out the SWAT teams and the Olympics was unusual as it had officers with guns on public patroll.

                  Even the vast number of military personel who were drafted in to help security were unarmed and if I'd trust anyone with a gun it would be them.
                  When a nation allows its police to look and act like our military, complete with their war weapons, one has to feel that the view of americans by those in power has taken one helluva step downward, and we are seen in a different light. As the enemy.

                  This war on drugs, this war on terror, has led to this, but it was already moving in that direction given the years we have waged war against personal freedom, that turned our cops into the gestapo, filled our prisons with men who came out as convicted felons, just for exercising a basic human right. We didn't use the lesson learned from prohibition, in fact, with great energy we ignored those lessons, and created something much worse than existed when we outlawed booze.

                  When you start taking away basic freedoms, it is no surprise that you might need a police force that operates and looks like a military. Such tactics and measures are needed when you insist on keeping the heels of the boot firmly on the neck of those people who don't think that you should be owning their bodies. So, this causes people over time to hate and to disrespect those men that would agree to take away a basic god given right. And you see this, not only from the black communities who have half their men in prison on dope charges, but in the younger crowd of people who didn't get brainwashed into believing the arguments laid out by the State as justification for stripping away basic human rights.

                  If you allow our police to dress, arm themselves and use military tactics suited for the battlefield, well, don't be surprised if they start acting just like that when dealing with amercan citizens.

                  America does not need a militarized police force. America should have never allowed it to happen. And now that we have one, full blown, we have got to end it, by putting men into office who hold our same American values, instead of only representing the values of the sociopaths who are our elites.

                  The oligarchs need a militarized police force, to keep them safe from the ire of the people once they understand they don't live in a republic, but an oligarchy. And that is one reason that we have one today, as we have battles every night as the swat drug teams bust down doors, terrorizing the kids, as they go after that man who is selling people what they want, for personal use, as they exercise the most fundamental human right, the right to consume whatever you want to.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                    It’s an end-run around Posse Comitatus. What’s the point of prohibiting the military from acting domestically while arming the police with military weapons and equipment? It isn’t like violent crime is on the rise; we haven’t had violent crime rates this low since the 70’s.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                      Originally posted by tsquare View Post
                      Wrong again BD... I'd vote for Rand WAAAAYYYYY before I'd vote for Hilary or ol' Joe, or the Indian princess.
                      I'm coming off the bench to ask this question as I won't have the chance in the future: who would garner a vote Against Paul from you? Which candidate of pub fame would you support over paul?


                      Before anyone starts: this is my off day (orientation is over and class starts Monday. I arise at 6 to begin work and study tomorrow. Now I'm waiting on my affianced to finish work and thus have time for this.)

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                        Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
                        It’s an end-run around Posse Comitatus. What’s the point of prohibiting the military from acting domestically while arming the police with military weapons and equipment? It isn’t like violent crime is on the rise; we haven’t had violent crime rates this low since the 70’s.
                        Ditto.

                        If there's actually a riot going on at the moment, I can certainly understand the need protective vests, helmets, and even shields. But it just seems needlessly provocative, utterly unnecessary, and politically dangerous to send out squads of policemen dressed in camo fatigues and carrying assault rifles.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          I'm coming off the bench to ask this question as I won't have the chance in the future: who would garner a vote Against Paul from you? Which candidate of pub fame would you support over paul?


                          Before anyone starts: this is my off day (orientation is over and class starts Monday. I arise at 6 to begin work and study tomorrow. Now I'm waiting on my affianced to finish work and thus have time for this.)
                          Scott Walker is a fav of mine.

                          I love the IDEA of Pres. Ted Cruz.

                          Marco... Bobby... JEB... Chris... all of them would be 1,000% better than what we have today. And all of them would come to the job far more qualified than Obama.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                            Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
                            It’s an end-run around Posse Comitatus. What’s the point of prohibiting the military from acting domestically while arming the police with military weapons and equipment? It isn’t like violent crime is on the rise; we haven’t had violent crime rates this low since the 70’s.
                            True, there is no need for turning our police into the military, with crime rates down. But this turning the police into a military is beginning to piss off and worry some of us, yet given what the Princeton study concluded with, the gov't isn't listening to the average American anyways, but only has an ear for the elite oligarchs. So, obviously the oligarchs want a militarized police, as well as open borders and lip service only in enforcement.

                            All of this has the finger prints of the oligarchs all over it, and they are doing it from self interest, for they might fear something like the French Revolution again, and they need a huge militarized police force to protect their wealth. Once you add into that equation that we are governed, ruled over by other sociopaths, who are intoxicated with their power, and what good is power if you cannot use it upon someone?

                            Given the changes wrought upon working people, you need a police force that operates and is armed like our military. For once the suffering reaches a certain point, and there is no hope at all for average people, history tells us they will react violently. And who are they reacting against? Who must be protected?

                            The only thing lacking is disarming americans, and that is the next thing. How many false flags it will take is debatable, but that is indeed in the works. You can expect it to happen, for that is the last vestige of a genuinely free people, and the only thing between the people and a greater control of those people.

                            The reason we have that right to bear arms if because the founders knew history all too well. Afterall, if you didn't hunt back then, you didn't eat in much of America, so it wasn't about guns for hunting, but guns to defend the freedom, and the republic. That the police now can outgun the People is alarming, and the number of americans who own guns is still a great problem to an authoritarian gov't. So, that has got to go, and we will have to be disarmed at some point. And there are those in gov't right now that would indeed do that, if they could.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Rand Paul, we must demilitarize our police

                              Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                              True enough, though that has more to do with basic competence and investigation, and less to do with the tools of the trade. No-knock warrants however are a poor substitute for technology and firepower. I have a hard time believing that a perp can destroy all incriminating evidence under duress in the era of forensic science, and firepower should overcome any ad-hoc defenses

                              Of course, in a perfect world, people could have their hobbies without hurting the general public, and the public would have no need to regulate said hobbies. See Franklin's comments above.
                              What do you mean could? They do have their hobbies without hurting the general public.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X