Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear for police

[Not2BSubjugated]

Fascism is on the move when leaders encourage the police to start treating the populace like an enemy.

And what's on the move when mainstream culture encourages the populace to treat the police like an enemy?

Or the president (Obama) of the United States.

Lol, at what point did mainstream culture encourage any such thing? Only Fox News, Breitbart, and a small host of internet publications that nobody takes seriously who doesn't share their ideology were ever particularly critical of President Obama. If you think that Republican politics define our mainstream culture, you don't get out much.

On the contrary. BLM members and supporters frequently called for the murder of cops and some of them followed through on it. Obama spent 8 years being critical (and being wrong) on various incidents regarding police. Do you remember the DNC convention wherein they had a "Mothers of dead black criminals" celebration? The left has been demonizing law-enforcement for many years now. Where have you been?

Oh, man, I totally went in the opposite direction with that post than what you meant. Gotcha, no, I agree. Mike Brown's mother appearing at Democrat rallies kinda made me wanna vomit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Legitimize like what? Should we make it legal to attack our police officers? Should we make it legal to not obey the commands of a police officer? Make it legal to destroy public and private property? Make it legal to close down roads to protest?

If somebody on our side acts outside of our laws, they too deserve whatever our authority decides to do to them. But since 98% of the problems in these protests are from the left, it wouldn't bother me all that much.

Legitimize like what?

Okay, campaign funding. When Africans do it, they shout that it's corruption, when Americans do it they say it's campaign financing or something like that.

No, it should not be legal to attack anyone. But it is legal in some circumstances.

What happens if a police officer tells you to kill yourself? Should it be illegal to not obey the commands of that officer?

Let's go back to the Civil Rights' movement. What happens when the people with power are white and they make it illegal for black people to do things. Is it okay to fight back? Is it okay to break those laws?

Were those who fought against discriminatory laws "the enemy"?

Wait a minute, when is attacking somebody justified? Self-defense is justified, but never attacking somebody. I'm a black belt and a CCW holder, and this is the first I ever heard about justified attacks on another human being.

And what do you mean by when blacks fund campaigns, it's corruption? I have no idea WTF you're even talking about. Who ever said that? Have any examples?

Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? There is no comparison to civil rights to lowlifes attacking our police and adversaries because all the good people want to stay within the law and they don't.

Well that depends on how you consider attack. Executions are attacks. They're legal.

I didn't say anything about "blacks fund campaigns", I said in Africa. So I can see why you have no idea what I'm talking about if you can't even read what I wrote (again).

But I'll try and explain. The whole idea of democracy is that the people have a vote and the representatives then represent the voters somehow in order to get re-elected. However when you have people like the Koch brothers, among others, throwing cash everywhere and literally paying politicians to do their bidding for cash, which is then spent on paying for that politician to be re-elected, then you have corruption. However it's not called corruption. It's legitimized. In Africa when people use money to take money out of the system, it's called corruption. Leaders who stay in power and do whatever they like are called corrupt. But the Koch brothers, among others, can't be kicked out of power, just like African dictators can't be kicked out of power.

"Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? "

Do you want me to be frank Ray? The simple answer to this is because I'm not fucking stupid. It's because I understand how to make points and to back my points up with EVIDENCE. I do understand that a lot of people have a hard time understanding how to make a legitimate point, they look at the media and get pissy because the media doesn't say what they want them to say, but fucking hell Ray, what I'm doing is making a point and BACKING THE FUCKING THING UP. I can't believe that you're attacking me for backing up a point. You reach new lows every fucking time I talk to you.

Look.......do you want to talk about current situations in the US or not? I don't GAF about Africa. If you want to talk about Africa, start a topic on it. This topic is about military gear for our police IN THE US!!!!!

Executions are not an attack. Executions are a legal penalty decided by a jury and a judge. Political contributions are on both sides. Ever hear of George Soros? Ever hear of unions? Ever hear of Hollywood or trial lawyers? Ever hear of a guy named Warren Buffet?

Civil rights and other protests you wish to go back to were at a time when there was antiquated communications. It was virtually the only way for people to be heard. That's unnecessary today. Today you have cable TV, today you have email, today you have social media, today you have investigative reporting, today you have the internet. There is no need to protest or start riots today unless the only reason you have is to start trouble. And because people are only out on the streets to start trouble, our police need any means to combat that trouble by the left.

Yes Ray, and in talking about the present, you can look back at the past to see how things work.

Seemingly what you're doing Ray, is finding things that are inconvenient and then coming up with a tactic designed to stop that inconvenience from impacting your argument. Sorry Ray, you talk to me you talk to me in the present which is impacted by the past, and based on the reality that history repeats itself, and to understand things you need to look at the past.

Look Ray, I couldn't give a fuck if you never learned how to make an argument properly, but I did. If you have a problem talking to people who make arguments and back them up, I'm sure there are plenty of fuckheads who will do it in the way of morons and idiots. But that's not me, okay. So choose.

Executions ARE an attack Ray. And your argument as to why they're not goes back to them being legal. Just because something is legal doesn't stop it being an attack Ray. It's like saying this biscuit isn't a biscuit because it's Thursday.

You can have a group of people decide to make an attack. Just because they're a judge and jury doesn't stop it being an attack. It's clearly not self defense, is it? So it must be an attack. If I were to kill someone in the same manner as an execution I would be hunted down by the police for it. Why? Because I attacked someone.

I didn't say political contributions weren't on both sides Ray. So why you brought this up, I have no fucking idea. What, exactly, does this have to do with this conversation?

Ray, the Civil Rights movement was at a time of limited communications. But the Constitution is still the same Constitution. In the modern world it's still difficult for people to be heard. I've been on political forums like this for 20 something years and yet the media has ignored me completely and utterly. Not that I care.

The media did NOT ignore those protesters. Nothing much has changed Ray, the more communications we have, the more we have to sift through it all and the more we ignore things. We're still acting like the 1960s with limited media. The right have one TV news show, Fox News. Why so limited? Because it's easier that way, rather than having to make choices.

Protest is still protest, it's still protected by the Constitution and you're saying that protest makes you the enemy of the state (or at least the state as you think it should be).

If something was right in the 1960s, why is it wrong today?

There is no need? Well there is no need to have guns in the modern era either. There's no need to have TV in fact, we have the internet, you can watch programs on your computer. There's no need for lots of things, like lights with different voltage, or with special colors. We're not talking about NEED here Ray, we're talking about RIGHTS>

That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Let me ask: if a police officer arrests somebody, is that an attack? When the officer throws a criminal in jail, is that an attack? When a judge sentences a murderer to 20 years in jail, is that an attack?

The death penalty is just that--a penalty. It's what you owe society and a victims family for their loss and unacceptable behavior to society. It's not an attack especially when you caused the harm to other people that brought you the penalty. When you committed the act, you knew the possibilities of the penalty. You brought it on yourself.

No, you can't kill somebody on your own, that's called murder, just like you can't legally put somebody in handcuffs and put them someplace where they can't get out. That's called kidnapping. Only authority (which we the public give to others) are allowed to do that.

The people have never had a louder voice than today. For crying out loud, somebody can't kick their dog without the news doing a story on it. People who riot, attack our police officers, attack citizens, destroy property are criminals, and criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. Allowing our police the equipment to do that job safely and efficiently is not a problem as far as I (and most law abiding citizens) are concerned. And do you know why it doesn't concern me? Because I will never be in a confrontation with police.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Legitimize like what?

Okay, campaign funding. When Africans do it, they shout that it's corruption, when Americans do it they say it's campaign financing or something like that.

No, it should not be legal to attack anyone. But it is legal in some circumstances.

What happens if a police officer tells you to kill yourself? Should it be illegal to not obey the commands of that officer?

Let's go back to the Civil Rights' movement. What happens when the people with power are white and they make it illegal for black people to do things. Is it okay to fight back? Is it okay to break those laws?

Were those who fought against discriminatory laws "the enemy"?

Wait a minute, when is attacking somebody justified? Self-defense is justified, but never attacking somebody. I'm a black belt and a CCW holder, and this is the first I ever heard about justified attacks on another human being.

And what do you mean by when blacks fund campaigns, it's corruption? I have no idea WTF you're even talking about. Who ever said that? Have any examples?

Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? There is no comparison to civil rights to lowlifes attacking our police and adversaries because all the good people want to stay within the law and they don't.

Well that depends on how you consider attack. Executions are attacks. They're legal.

I didn't say anything about "blacks fund campaigns", I said in Africa. So I can see why you have no idea what I'm talking about if you can't even read what I wrote (again).

But I'll try and explain. The whole idea of democracy is that the people have a vote and the representatives then represent the voters somehow in order to get re-elected. However when you have people like the Koch brothers, among others, throwing cash everywhere and literally paying politicians to do their bidding for cash, which is then spent on paying for that politician to be re-elected, then you have corruption. However it's not called corruption. It's legitimized. In Africa when people use money to take money out of the system, it's called corruption. Leaders who stay in power and do whatever they like are called corrupt. But the Koch brothers, among others, can't be kicked out of power, just like African dictators can't be kicked out of power.

"Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? "

Do you want me to be frank Ray? The simple answer to this is because I'm not fucking stupid. It's because I understand how to make points and to back my points up with EVIDENCE. I do understand that a lot of people have a hard time understanding how to make a legitimate point, they look at the media and get pissy because the media doesn't say what they want them to say, but fucking hell Ray, what I'm doing is making a point and BACKING THE FUCKING THING UP. I can't believe that you're attacking me for backing up a point. You reach new lows every fucking time I talk to you.

Look.......do you want to talk about current situations in the US or not? I don't GAF about Africa. If you want to talk about Africa, start a topic on it. This topic is about military gear for our police IN THE US!!!!!

Executions are not an attack. Executions are a legal penalty decided by a jury and a judge. Political contributions are on both sides. Ever hear of George Soros? Ever hear of unions? Ever hear of Hollywood or trial lawyers? Ever hear of a guy named Warren Buffet?

Civil rights and other protests you wish to go back to were at a time when there was antiquated communications. It was virtually the only way for people to be heard. That's unnecessary today. Today you have cable TV, today you have email, today you have social media, today you have investigative reporting, today you have the internet. There is no need to protest or start riots today unless the only reason you have is to start trouble. And because people are only out on the streets to start trouble, our police need any means to combat that trouble by the left.

Yes Ray, and in talking about the present, you can look back at the past to see how things work.

Seemingly what you're doing Ray, is finding things that are inconvenient and then coming up with a tactic designed to stop that inconvenience from impacting your argument. Sorry Ray, you talk to me you talk to me in the present which is impacted by the past, and based on the reality that history repeats itself, and to understand things you need to look at the past.

Look Ray, I couldn't give a fuck if you never learned how to make an argument properly, but I did. If you have a problem talking to people who make arguments and back them up, I'm sure there are plenty of fuckheads who will do it in the way of morons and idiots. But that's not me, okay. So choose.

Executions ARE an attack Ray. And your argument as to why they're not goes back to them being legal. Just because something is legal doesn't stop it being an attack Ray. It's like saying this biscuit isn't a biscuit because it's Thursday.

You can have a group of people decide to make an attack. Just because they're a judge and jury doesn't stop it being an attack. It's clearly not self defense, is it? So it must be an attack. If I were to kill someone in the same manner as an execution I would be hunted down by the police for it. Why? Because I attacked someone.

I didn't say political contributions weren't on both sides Ray. So why you brought this up, I have no fucking idea. What, exactly, does this have to do with this conversation?

Ray, the Civil Rights movement was at a time of limited communications. But the Constitution is still the same Constitution. In the modern world it's still difficult for people to be heard. I've been on political forums like this for 20 something years and yet the media has ignored me completely and utterly. Not that I care.

The media did NOT ignore those protesters. Nothing much has changed Ray, the more communications we have, the more we have to sift through it all and the more we ignore things. We're still acting like the 1960s with limited media. The right have one TV news show, Fox News. Why so limited? Because it's easier that way, rather than having to make choices.

Protest is still protest, it's still protected by the Constitution and you're saying that protest makes you the enemy of the state (or at least the state as you think it should be).

If something was right in the 1960s, why is it wrong today?

There is no need? Well there is no need to have guns in the modern era either. There's no need to have TV in fact, we have the internet, you can watch programs on your computer. There's no need for lots of things, like lights with different voltage, or with special colors. We're not talking about NEED here Ray, we're talking about RIGHTS>

That's about the stupidest thing I have ever read. Let me ask: if a police officer arrests somebody, is that an attack? When the officer throws a criminal in jail, is that an attack? When a judge sentences a murderer to 20 years in jail, is that an attack?

The death penalty is just that--a penalty. It's what you owe society and a victims family for their loss and unacceptable behavior to society. It's not an attack especially when you caused the harm to other people that brought you the penalty. When you committed the act, you knew the possibilities of the penalty. You brought it on yourself.

No, you can't kill somebody on your own, that's called murder, just like you can't legally put somebody in handcuffs and put them someplace where they can't get out. That's called kidnapping. Only authority (which we the public give to others) are allowed to do that.

The people have never had a louder voice than today. For crying out loud, somebody can't kick their dog without the news doing a story on it. People who riot, attack our police officers, attack citizens, destroy property are criminals, and criminals need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. Allowing our police the equipment to do that job safely and efficiently is not a problem as far as I (and most law abiding citizens) are concerned. And do you know why it doesn't concern me? Because I will never be in a confrontation with police.

It hardly surprises me that this is the stupidest thing you've ever read, but I do wonder what it is you are actually reading, it's probably not what I wrote, but anyway. I didn't say a police officer arresting someone is an attack, so.... had you read what I actually wrote on the other hand....

Just because the death penalty is a penalty, that doesn't stop it being an attack. If I do EXACTLY the same thing, the law would see it as an attack. You logic doesn't stand up to any scrutiny here Ray.

Yes, it's called murder. THANK YOU VERY MUCH for proving me right.

The people have never had a louder voice, and I guess politicians have never had stronger ear plugs either. The US and democracy don't go together for fuck's sake. You have politicians massively on the take.

Why do you think opensecrets.org is called open secrets. But then you've always defended the system, no matter how fucking corrupt it is, as long as it's the Republican side of the corruption. You'll happily tell me all about the Democratic corruption.

You have superPACs Ray, what do you think one of those is? It's a way of people funneling money to politicians so no one, not you, not me, can see what the fuck is going on. We don't know how much money these people are giving to politicians, but we know it's happening and I know it's wrong. You seem to think it's okay though because you'll excuse corruption.

You'll never be in confrontation with the police? Well, time will tell whether you're lucky enough for that to be the case or not. The way the US is going, you SHOULD be in confrontation with the police in a few decades.

But then you know why the RKBA exists right? It's so that people could topple the govt, topple the police, take it all down. Or maybe you didn't know that.

 

[K9Buck]

I think some liberals would prefer that their communities not have law enforcement agencies.

 

[JoeB131]

Stop rioting and obey the law. Problem solved.

Yeah, if you want to live under fascism. Most of us don't.

Law and Order is not fascism. What part of..."No one has the 'right'
to break the law" are you struggling with

The part where we got a fascist government installed by the Russians.

But, please, please, please keep thinking you can beat people into submission. That always works out well.

Just ask Tricky Dick.

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals, should police officers carry guns?

As long as any crazy person can, um, yeah, they have to.

But when they misuse those guns, like shooting a kid 16 times when he's lying on the ground, they need to go to prison.

 

[K9Buck]

Yeah, if you want to live under fascism. Most of us don't.

Are we under imminent threat to live under fascism?

 

[JoeB131]

Are we under imminent threat to live under fascism?

You are asking this question in a thread about the police getting military grade equipment to deal with protestors?

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, if you want to live under fascism. Most of us don't.

Are we under imminent threat to live under fascism?

Look at post 125. Obeying laws means you're living under fascism.

That's how far this has fallen apart.

Refuse to bake a cake, however, and it's ALL ABOUT the law.
.

 

[K9Buck]

Are we under imminent threat to live under fascism?

You are asking this question in a thread about the police getting military grade equipment to deal with protestors?

Avoidance.

 

[JoeB131]

Look at post 125. Obeying laws means you're living under fascism.

That's how far this has fallen apart.

Refuse to bake a cake, however, and it's ALL ABOUT the law.

Uh, guy, blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus if people "just obeyed the law".

If some wife beater in Oregon really thinks that baking a cake is imposing on him (after his wife invited them to buy a cake from them) then by all means, he should break that law... and accept the consequences when everyone else thinks he's silly.

But you are right on one point. It has fallen apart. It fell apart when white people decided that they were going to blame the darkies for all their woes instead of the One Percent.

Avoidance.

No, just not the answer you wanted to hear.

Now, here's the thing. In my younger days, I was in the Army National Guard, and one of the things we were tasked with was civil disobedience training. And the Major who was instructing the class said "If people are out on the street, they are your fellow citizens, they are damned angry about something and they have every right to be!"

This was a little over a decade after Kent State, when some of the people in that room still have memories of what that was like.

Today, we have people around Trump who think that the people who are angry about his theft and corruption can just be beaten if we give the police military grade weapons.

That's all manner of fucked up.

 

[K9Buck]

Today, we have people around Trump who think that the people who are angry about his theft and corruption can just be beaten if we give the police military grade weapons.

We're supposed to take you seriously?

 

[JoeB131]

We're supposed to take you seriously?

Given the fact that you guys are totally cool with Trump as long as he validates your racism, I doubt you'll take the problem seriously.

But my grandparents fled from Nazi Germany... we've seen this script before.

 

[K9Buck]

We're supposed to take you seriously?

Given the fact that you guys are totally cool with Trump as long as he validates your racism, I doubt you'll take the problem seriously.

But my grandparents fled from Nazi Germany... we've seen this script before.

Trump wants to LESSEN government regulation over the people and permit said people to keep MORE of their own money rather than giving it to the government. A fascist would NEVER do such things. Is that what Hitler did? Did Hitler demand more or less control over the lives of Germans? Did Hitler want more or less of the fruits of labor of the German people? The American left is FAR closer to fascism than Trump and by a long shot.

 

[K9Buck]

...you guys are totally cool with Trump as long as he validates your racism...

How am I a racist?

 

[JoeB131]

Trump wants to LESSEN government regulation over the people and permit said people to keep MORE of their own money rather than giving it to the government. A fascist would NEVER do such things. Is that what Hitler did?

Uh, yeah. The rich in Germany did very well under Hitler. Until they lost the war, anyway. The thing about Fascism is that the rich just love, love, love it.

A fascist would NEVER do such things. Is that what Hitler did? Did Hitler demand more or less control over the lives of Germans? Did Hitler want more or less of the fruits of labor of the German people? The American left is FAR closer to fascism than Trump and by a long shot.

Okay, dude, I don't measure "Freedom" in terms of how free the wealthy are to abuse the rest of us. Usually, when a wingnut talks about 'Freedom", he usually means protecting privilege.

Living in a civilized society costs money. If the rich are paying the lion share of taxes, it's because they have too much of the money to start with.

 

[K9Buck]

Trump wants to LESSEN government regulation over the people and permit said people to keep MORE of their own money rather than giving it to the government. A fascist would NEVER do such things. Is that what Hitler did?

Uh, yeah. The rich in Germany did very well under Hitler. Until they lost the war, anyway. The thing about Fascism is that the rich just love, love, love it.

A fascist would NEVER do such things. Is that what Hitler did? Did Hitler demand more or less control over the lives of Germans? Did Hitler want more or less of the fruits of labor of the German people? The American left is FAR closer to fascism than Trump and by a long shot.

Okay, dude, I don't measure "Freedom" in terms of how free the wealthy are to abuse the rest of us. Usually, when a wingnut talks about 'Freedom", he usually means protecting privilege.

Living in a civilized society costs money. If the rich are paying the lion share of taxes, it's because they have too much of the money to start with.

Ok man. How's your bunker coming?

 

[jon_berzerk]

...you guys are totally cool with Trump as long as he validates your racism...

How am I a racist?

because you disagree with a leftist

 

[JoeB131]

Ok man. How's your bunker coming?

My biggest worry is after Trump fails, we are going to get a left wing nut like Bernie who is going to screw things up just as bad.

because you disagree with a leftist

Because you guys don't even see your own racism. You pretty much lost your shit because a moderate black man became president and did kind of an okay job.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ok man. How's your bunker coming?

My biggest worry is after Trump fails, we are going to get a left wing nut like Bernie who is going to screw things up just as bad.

because you disagree with a leftist

Because you guys don't even see your own racism. You pretty much lost your shit because a moderate black man became president and did kind of an okay job.

fuck you leftist troll

your only argument ever is -you are a racist -you are nazi -you are alt right blah blah blah

oh and another thing all you do is lie