Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-27-2006, 10:17 PM   #1
Carrionshine
Registered User
 
Carrionshine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 218
Top 10 Signs of The Impending US Police State

http://www.buffalobeast.com/99/policestate.htm

I stumbled across this today.I'm wondering what you guys think about it.
Carrionshine is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 10:43 PM   #2
YDload
凸[◣_◢]凸
Supermod
 
YDload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ~*you're in my web now*~
Posts: 25,538
Bullshit.

Right now I'm reading Fear And Loathing In America, which is a collection of Hunter S. Thompson's letters from 1968-76. Very interesting.

Throughout his letters, Thompson expresses a seemingly sincere fear that the US Government will cease to exist and that Nixon will take over as a dictator by 1972. The point is, people on the extreme left are always afraid that Republican presidents are going to turn the country into a fascist state. And guess what? Conservatives said the same thing about Clinton! It's all partisan garbage, and that site doesn't even do a good job in that respect.
YDload is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 10:45 PM   #3
Nazi Bastard
Registered User
 
Nazi Bastard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 260
I honestly hope this happens.
Nazi Bastard is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 12:08 AM   #4
Reaganista
ill be ur dog
 
Reaganista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: come to u when u call me
Posts: 29,013
James R. Schlesinger called the joint chiefs together when watergate broke to remind them that any orders of the president had to go through him and they weren't to obey direct commands.
supposedly because he thought Nixon was going to try to take over the country, although he's maintained that this was just a friendly reminder on a coincidental day.
Reaganista is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 12:50 AM   #5
Against Miik!
Registered User
 
Against Miik!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Athens
Posts: 19,984
All those things are true, but not to the extent that the author wants us to think. However, i've believe since the patriot act was passed that we are leaning in the wrong direction.
Against Miik! is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 07:32 AM   #6
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
I'll add a British "Countdown To 1984."

> The War on Terror, and before that the War on Drugs.

> The future introduction of compulsory ID cards that contain a biometrics chip which is designed to store DNA, fingerprints, retina scans, info on piercings and tattoos and moles/birthmarks, criminal history and sometime in the future credit and medical history.

> SOCPA (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act) which made it illegal for any protests to be held within one kilometer of the Houses of Parliament without asking police permission a week in advance. This makes spontaneous demonstrations in that radius absolutely illegal.

> Refugee detention centres, which are centres of terrible human rights abuses by the privately-owned security firms who run it. These detention centres may hold any foreigner indefinitely, because unlike a crime which has a maximum amount of jail-time, refugees were not put in there for committing crimes, and therefore are held prisoner illegally and indefinitely. One man was held for five years with no clue as to when he will come out, sometimes he thought never.

> The LARR Bill (Legislative And Regulatory Reform Bill, aka Abolition of Parliament Bill), which will allow ministers to amend or repeal any existing laws, and also to create new laws and new criminal offences. This Bill, if passed, would also give ministers the power to repeal itself, and so getting rid of any safety checks and balances placed on the Bill. It could mean that there might be no more elections, because a minister could abolish the act stating that an election must be held every five years.

> Tony Blair is now speaking of amending the Human Rights Act, I'm not sure why.

> High investment in CCTV cameras, and installation of cameras on estates, with control access to residents.

That's as much as I can think of, for now.

Last edited by coheneran; 05-28-2006 at 08:06 AM.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 08:03 AM   #7
RandyfromPennywise
Gianfranco Zola. Legend.
 
RandyfromPennywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by coheneran
> Refugee detention centres, which are centres of terrible human rights abuses by the privately-owned security firms who run it. These detention centres may hold any foreigner indefinitely, because unlike a crime which has a maximum amount of jail-time, refugees were not put in there for committing crimes, and therefore are held prisoner illegally and indefinitely. One man was held for five years with no clue as to when he will come out, sometimes he thought never.
Welcome to the Land Down Under friends.
RandyfromPennywise is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 08:13 AM   #8
deathscreamingsheep
Turning Water into Funk
 
deathscreamingsheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,418
That link was nearly as good as Shelley the Republican's blog.
deathscreamingsheep is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 11:40 AM   #9
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
The BBC have found that since we invaded Iraq around a thousand soldiers of the British army have deserted. The government are now discussing a Bill which, if passed, would make it an offence for British soldiers to refuse to occupy a foreign country. This begs the question: How many more countries are they intending to occupy that call for such a non-specific law?
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 12:51 PM   #10
PerpetualBurn
Like a greasy chip butty
 
PerpetualBurn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Highway 61 (again)
Posts: 9,409
That seems fair. If you sign up for the army you shouldn't then complain when you have to take orders.
PerpetualBurn is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 01:05 PM   #11
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn
That seems fair. If you sign up for the army you shouldn't then complain when you have to take orders.
Except that the general consensus as to why people should join the army is to protect their country, and people can see that the Iraq War is clearly not defence of one's country.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 01:08 PM   #12
nowhesingsnowhesobs
__
 
nowhesingsnowhesobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
no jackass if you sign up you're obliged to follow your orders
nowhesingsnowhesobs is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 01:10 PM   #13
PerpetualBurn
Like a greasy chip butty
 
PerpetualBurn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Highway 61 (again)
Posts: 9,409
The British army, along with most other developed countries' armies, is involved in a lot of overseas peace-keeping operations.

And irrespective of that, a soldier's political opinion is irrelevant, they should follow orders (unless that order breaches international law). You can't have an army where defecting is okay.

Why is it unreasonable of the government to expect soldiers to go to war when they're told?
PerpetualBurn is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 01:22 PM   #14
MegaPhony
Don't mess.
 
MegaPhony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 3,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by coheneran
Except that the general consensus as to why people should join the army is to protect their country, and people can see that the Iraq War is clearly not defence of one's country.
Depends on your definition of protect.
From the point of view of the government, the Iraq War is protection against further events such as 9/11. So in a way, they are protecting the nation.
Don't join the war if you don't want to fight.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Ever heard of a firefighter who ran away from burning buildings?
Nobody wants to die, but then again those who are aware of the risks don't join the army...
MegaPhony is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 01:30 PM   #15
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegaPhony
Depends on your definition of protect.
From the point of view of the government, the Iraq War is protection against further events such as 9/11. So in a way, they are protecting the nation.
Don't join the war if you don't want to fight.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Ever heard of a firefighter who ran away from burning buildings?
Nobody wants to die, but then again those who are aware of the risks don't join the army...
I swear there was something in the human rights act about conscientious refusal.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 04:41 PM   #16
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
You know, in many ways the US is starting to resemble a proto-fascist state. Check out: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm#fascism
Danish is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 04:49 PM   #17
Reaganista
ill be ur dog
 
Reaganista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: come to u when u call me
Posts: 29,013
lol
Reaganista is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 04:58 PM   #18
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Heh, nice one.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:02 PM   #19
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath
Self-reference, eh?
Huh?
Danish is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:08 PM   #20
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danish
Huh?
He's calling you a Marxist.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:35 PM   #21
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath
No, I was saying a Marxism and Fascism are really similar. God.
They're nothing like each other. Didn't you read the description? One is an extreme elitist capitalism, another is communist.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:36 PM   #22
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spat Out Plath
No, I was saying a Marxism and Fascism are really similar. God.
Marxism and fascism are actually very, very different.
Danish is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:37 PM   #23
Danish
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by coheneran
They're nothing like each other. Didn't you read the description? One is an extreme elitist capitalism, another is communist.
It could be argued, and successfully in my opinion, that Stalinism is a highly elitest form of state capitalism. But it should be noted that Stalinism really has little to do with Marx.
Danish is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:41 PM   #24
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danish
It could be argued, and successfully in my opinion, that Stalinism is a highly elitest form of state capitalism. But it should be noted that Stalinism really has little to do with Marx.
I don't like arguing with people who use the Stalinism argument against communism, because sinking that low to such a shallow example tells me that they're not really open to new ideas or persuasion, or even that they understand communism beyond what McCarthy-ism teaches.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 08:08 PM   #25
-1up!-
Hypermodern
 
-1up!-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 2,069
People who analyse communism through Stalinism are idiots, period. The saddest thing is, that kind of idiocy is pretty popular.
-1up!- is offline  
Old 05-29-2006, 04:51 AM   #26
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by -1up!-
People who analyse communism through Stalinism are idiots, period. The saddest thing is, that kind of idiocy is pretty popular.
It's popular because it's a good argument for people who just want to put communism down. But people who argue for the sake of knowledge can see it's stupid.
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-29-2006, 05:15 AM   #27
PerpetualBurn
Like a greasy chip butty
 
PerpetualBurn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Highway 61 (again)
Posts: 9,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by coheneran
I swear there was something in the human rights act about conscientious refusal.
How can someone justify voluntarily joining the army and then expecting to become a conscientious objector when they don't like the politics involved?
PerpetualBurn is offline  
Old 05-29-2006, 05:27 AM   #28
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerpetualBurn
How can someone justify voluntarily joining the army and then expecting to become a conscientious objector when they don't like the politics involved?
Because the whole reason people join the army nowadays is to defend their country, and people can see Iraq has nowt to do with defence!
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-29-2006, 06:31 AM   #29
coheneran
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In the company of the aggrieved
Posts: 8,796
I agree with that, but I think it's a different situation when soldiers were misled from the first into believeing their country needs protection (the whole WMDs bullcrap).
coheneran is offline  
Old 05-29-2006, 07:23 AM   #30
PerpetualBurn
Like a greasy chip butty
 
PerpetualBurn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Highway 61 (again)
Posts: 9,409
No. A soldier must act independent from politics.

If he votes Labour at the election, and the Tories get in to power, then he is still no less of a soldier. He must act as he did before.

You sign up to the army to do what you're told, and you can't cry about it if you disagree with the orders.
PerpetualBurn is offline  
 


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:04 PM.