Topic: Militarized Police
started by: MADDOG
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 19 2014,10:56 am
I've been watching the lengthy protests going on in Ferguson, Missouri several evenings on the news. Last night I had on MSNBC, CNN, Fox and even Aljazeera TV seeing some of the different perspectives. One thing that has jumped out and definitely bothered me is the actions and show of force of the police. Whether it was actual force or just plain intimidation, I was appalled at where we have allowed some of this to go.Why police are showing force wearing military style clothing, carrying military style weapons (M4 short barrel 7.62 AR15s sporting Leupold scopes),20 and 30 round magazine clips, Kevlar helmuts, night vision equipment, Ka-Bar military knives and gas masks? Is it a show of force arriving in MRAPs and Bearcat armored personnel carriers?
Where have we gone from and oath to protect and serve to the use of intimidation and excessive force? Has this method helped protect us or create more hostility towards laws and their enforcement?
I have friends and acquaintances in law enforcement so I'm not against LEOs and wanting them to be safe. when I see all the armament and militarized force holding lines against protesters, I wonder if these actions only polarize the situation in Ferguson? I know if I showed up at a protest rally carrying a sign and they police showed up in flack jackets carrying assault style weapons and sporting tear gas launchers, it would set me off.
Maybe, just maybe, the LEO units are making it way more worse because of how they are treating this. Reminds me of Kent State. It was wrong then and it still is.
Posted by twingroves on Aug. 19 2014,11:44 am
when you go into battle you go in to win
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 19 2014,1:33 pm
Talk about making potholes< http://m.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0#bmb=1 >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 19 2014,2:59 pm
(twingroves @ Aug. 19 2014,11:44 am)
QUOTE
when you go into battle you go in to win
It's not a freakin battle. This is America for godsake, not Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country we feel the need to invade, spread democracy and keep the peace. We the people have rights. At least we are supposed to. Things are getting out of control bigtime in this country. And people like YOU, are the reason it's happening so quickly.
I have a lot of respect for most police officers and I too want them to be safe, but the militarization of our officers has gone too far. Other government agencies have also gone way too far.
The police virtually did NOTHING when looting was going on in Ferguson. Protesters and store owners were the only ones trying to stop looting the day after the shooting. But the police roll out those big military vehicles, wearing camoflauge and aiming machine guns at peaceful protesters. No wonder things are getting so out of hand down there. MADDOG, you are not the only person who would feel the way you do about how the police acted. I agree with you that it has exacerbated the situation. Reporters being arrested, tear gas and rubber bullets fired at them?
Any of this seem a bit over the top to you? And how much attention has the big national media given to any of these things? Not much.
DHS, SWAT, ICE, helicopters to raid home for suspected child porn.
< http://www.nbcmiami.com/news...41.html >
Another raid for child porn.
< http://fox2now.com/2014/07/10/federal-agents-swarm-livingston-ill/ >
I understand child pornography is a horrible disgusting thing, but this is severe overkill in my opinion. How were things like this handled in the past? Not like this.
This is what happened to a family in Las Vegas when the man didn't want to let police take over his home for surveillance on his neighbor. His parents who also live in the nieghborhood were also brought into the nightmare and abused.
< http://www.lasvegassun.com/news...-agains >
< http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm >
< http://billmoyers.com/2014...-forces >
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 19 2014,4:15 pm
QUOTE
The complaint continues: "Defendant Officer David Cawthorn outlined the defendants' plan in his official report: 'It was determined to move to 367 Evening Side and attempt to contact Mitchell. If Mitchell answered the door he would be asked to leave. If he refused to leave he would be arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer. If Mitchell refused to answer the door, force entry would be made and Mitchell would be arrested.'"
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states.
It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
"Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
"As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
"Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
"Addressing plaintiff as 'ass', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.
"Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.
He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: "Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's pet, a female dog named 'Sam,' was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit."
Anthony and his parents live in separate houses, close to one another on the same street. He claims that police treated his parents the same way.
At a few minutes before noon, at least five defendant officers "arrayed themselves in front of plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's house and prepared to execute their plan," the complaint states.
It continues: "The officers banged forcefully on the door and loudly commanded Anthony Mitchell to open the door to his residence.
"Surprised and perturbed, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell immediately called his mother (plaintiff Linda Mitchell) on the phone, exclaiming to her that the police were beating on his front door.
"Seconds later, officers, including Officer Rockwell, smashed open plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's front door with a metal ram as plaintiff stood in his living room.
"As plaintiff Anthony Mitchell stood in shock, the officers aimed their weapons at Anthony Mitchell and shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor.
"Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor of his living room, covering his face and hands.
"Addressing plaintiff as 'ass', officers, including Officer Snyder, shouted conflicting orders at Anthony Mitchell, commanding him to both shut off his phone, which was on the floor in front of his head, and simultaneously commanding him to 'crawl' toward the officers.
"Confused and terrified, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell remained curled on the floor of his living room, with his hands over his face, and made no movement.
"Although plaintiff Anthony Mitchell was lying motionless on the ground and posed no threat, officers, including Officer David Cawthorn, then fired multiple 'pepperball' rounds at plaintiff as he lay defenseless on the floor of his living room. Anthony Mitchell was struck at least three times by shots fired from close range, injuring him and causing him severe pain." (Parentheses in complaint.)
Officers then arrested him for obstructing a police officer, searched the house and moved furniture without his permission and set up a place in his home for a lookout, Mitchell says in the complaint.
He says they also hurt his pet dog for no reason whatsoever: "Plaintiff Anthony Mitchell's pet, a female dog named 'Sam,' was cowering in the corner when officers smashed through the front door. Although the terrified animal posed no threat to officers, they gratuitously shot it with one or more pepperball rounds. The panicked animal howled in fear and pain and fled from the residence. Sam was subsequently left trapped outside in a fenced alcove without access to water, food, or shelter from the sun for much of the day, while temperatures outside soared to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit."
Anthony and his parents live in separate houses, close to one another on the same street. He claims that police treated his parents the same way.
Don't even ask me what I think on how these "lower than life" badges should have done to them.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 19 2014,4:48 pm
There's this< http://www.freep.com/interac...rderBy= >
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 19 2014,4:57 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 19 2014,2:59 pm)
QUOTE
It's not a freakin battle.
Sadly Roz, it is a battle
Ferguson is just the soup d'jour at the moment, LA, Chicago, etc. are turning into war zones. Gangs like MS13 are better equipped than some police depts.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 19 2014,4:57 pm
Peaceful protesters?
Posted by grassman on Aug. 19 2014,5:53 pm
The bottom line is, they have allowed anyone from every corner come into this country. The war area is here. They have arrived. Now how do you combat the possible? SHOW OF CAPABILITY. Our open immigration has bit us in the a$$.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 19 2014,6:02 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 19 2014,4:57 pm)
QUOTE
Peaceful protesters?
Looter: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it.
Protester: A person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something; a demonstrator.
See LIbERal? There is a difference. And probably why so many protesters have been protecting businesses and trying to stop looters.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 19 2014,6:27 pm
(Self-Banished @ Aug. 19 2014,4:57 pm)
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 19 2014,2:59 pm)
QUOTE
It's not a freakin battle.
Sadly Roz, it is a battle
Ferguson is just the soup d'jour at the moment, LA, Chicago, etc. are turning into war zones. Gangs like MS13 are better equipped than some police depts.
Homicide and other violent crimes have dropped dramatically in the last decade or two. Police killed in the line of duty have also dropped.
Violent crimes in LA is down to the levels they had in the 60's.
Yeah, we still have too much crime and violence, but seriously, look at the equipment and weapons these police are getting. Most of the violent crime and murders we do have are not big gangs going around shooting everything up, they are not hiding in fortresses where big military vehicles and grenade launchers are needed. Honestly, look at Ferguson, it looks like Iraq. Yeah there are some dickhead troublemakers and looters, but most of those people are just protesting peacefully. They are pissed, and they have the right to protest.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 19 2014,11:39 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 19 2014,6:02 pm)
QUOTE
(Liberal @ Aug. 19 2014,4:57 pm)
QUOTE
Peaceful protesters?
Looter: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it.
Protester: A person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something; a demonstrator.
See LIbERal? There is a difference. And probably why so many protesters have been protecting businesses and trying to stop looters.
Do you think the riot police are there for the looters, shooters, and molotov cocktails throwers, or do you think they were there for the peaceful protesters?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,12:10 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 19 2014,11:39 pm)
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 19 2014,6:02 pm)
QUOTE
(Liberal @ Aug. 19 2014,4:57 pm)
QUOTE
Peaceful protesters?
Looter: a criminal who takes property belonging to someone else with the intention of keeping it or selling it.
Protester: A person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something; a demonstrator.
See LIbERal? There is a difference. And probably why so many protesters have been protecting businesses and trying to stop looters.
Do you think the riot police are there for the looters, shooters, and molotov cocktails throwers, or do you think they were there for the peaceful protesters?
Well since the police stood down for the looters, and only went after the protesters
. And I'm calling BS on police being shot at and having molotov cocktails thrown at them. There are a gazillion cameras down there, tons of reporters. There's not a single video of any molotov cocktail throwing or live reports of police being shot at? It's a good excuse for such police overreach though.
I've found one picture that all the major news have used showing a masked person throwing a molotov cocktail. I'm sure
molotov cocktails have been thrown at some of the businesses, but I find it hard to believe that they have been thrown at police and there's no video of it.
CNN says the police response doesn't make sense.
< www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTsAnS07hRo >
Even Fox News doesn't understand the police response to the protesters.
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlvCaPNz1I >
And I'll bet all those reporters that the police have threatened, abused and arrested were quite rowdy too huh.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 20 2014,7:18 am
Wow. Someone threw in their "Our government and their actions are pure as the driven snow" response. I'm shocked... 
On another note, are we to a point that police have to have two distinct responses, one for black people, and one for everybody else, for the fear that the former will riot? Seems like the elephant in the room to me...
Oh, what I said! Bring on the left-wing hate mail...
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 20 2014,7:36 am
^^^and someone played the race card, it just keeps getting better and better.
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 20 2014,7:55 am
You should really look into what phrases like "playing the race card" mean before you use them. 
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 20 2014,8:26 am
Oh maybe I stretched it a bit, quit whining.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,9:14 am
QUOTE
And I'm calling BS on police being shot at and having molotov cocktails thrown at them. There are a gazillion cameras down there, tons of reporters. There's not a single video of any molotov cocktail throwing or live reports of police being shot at? It's a good excuse for such police overreach though.
You might not find pictures like this on your "alternative news sites" but 5 secs with google images and you would have found these.
Posted by Glad I Left on Aug. 20 2014,9:29 am
bazinga!
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,9:40 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,9:14 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
And I'm calling BS on police being shot at and having molotov cocktails thrown at them. There are a gazillion cameras down there, tons of reporters. There's not a single video of any molotov cocktail throwing or live reports of police being shot at? It's a good excuse for such police overreach though.
You might not find pictures like this on your "alternative news sites" but 5 secs with google images and you would have found these.
Ooooh, so you found 4 more. Silly me didn't check google images, because I spent my time checking the national news sites. Since most of you only believe what comes from the MSM.
Do those pictures show the molotov cocktails being thrown at police? No.
Have you found any eye witness live reports in the mainstream of police being shot at or molotov cocktails thrown at them? Any pictures or videos to back them up if you do find any?
Since I do not agree with how things have been handled down in Ferguson, I am skeptical of the "official" reasons.
The police say they have been shot at and attacked with molotov cocktails. Gazillion cameras and no video. Strange
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,9:55 am
QUOTE
Do those pictures show the molotov cocktails being thrown at police? No.
Right, they were clearly using molotov cocktails to keep warm, or maybe to light their way home after a hard day of peaceful protesting.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,10:20 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,9:55 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Do those pictures show the molotov cocktails being thrown at police? No.
Right, they were clearly using molotov cocktails to keep warm, or maybe to light their way home after a hard day of peaceful protesting.
I have already stated that I don't doubt at all that LOOTERS threw molotov cocktails at buildings. I am doubting they threw them at police officers. Since that is the reason given for such a huge military like presence in Ferguson. Please take some reading comprehension classes LIbERal.
MADDOG, you see this one? Bunch of DHS and police in bullet proof vests show up to seize a vehicle that doesn't meet environmental standards! Wonder how much that operation cost lol. Insane.
< http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014...d-rover >
At least there were no helicopters or military vehicles.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,10:29 am
And if the police did nothing you government hating conspiracy theorists would complain they did nothing while rioters burned the city down. If the "peaceful protesters" don't want to get tear gassed then maybe they shouldn't be hanging out with rioters throwing rocks and molotov cocktails.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,10:33 am
QUOTE
Bunch of DHS and police in bullet proof vests show up to seize a vehicle that doesn't meet environmental standards! Wonder how much that operation cost lol. Insane.
Those heavy handed thugs were wearing bulletproof vests? What are we going to do with these crazy out of control cops looking to protect themselves?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,10:40 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,10:29 am)
QUOTE
And if the police did nothing you government hating conspiracy theorists would complain they did nothing while rioters burned the city down.
If the "peaceful protesters" don't want to get tear gassed then maybe they shouldn't be hanging out with rioters throwing rocks and molotov cocktails.
If the "peaceful protesters" don't want to get tear gassed then maybe they shouldn't be hanging out with rioters throwing rocks and molotov cocktails.
No, I have no problem with police going after looters and people causing destruction. But they haven't done much of that. It's been the protesters and store owners doing most of the protection of businesses.
QUOTE
If the "peaceful protesters" don't want to get tear gassed then maybe they shouldn't be hanging out with rioters throwing rocks and molotov cocktails.
That's such a ridiculous statement I won't even waste my time responding to it.
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v...wV1twLg >
LIbERal:
QUOTE
Those heavy handed thugs were wearing bulletproof vests? What are we going to do with these crazy out of control cops looking to protect themselves?
Yeah, that's the one thing from my comment and that event that you respond to. Typical.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,11:23 am
I thought the post was directed at how expensive and heavy handed it was to show up with bulletproof vests so I adressed the issue of the heavy handed thuggish police wearing bulletproof vests.Did you want me to also make fun of your complaint that law enforcement showed up on someone's property to seize an illegally imported vehicle that is evidence in a criminal case?
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 20 2014,11:38 am
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 20 2014,10:20 am)
QUOTE
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,9:55 am)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Do those pictures show the molotov cocktails being thrown at police? No.
Right, they were clearly using molotov cocktails to keep warm, or maybe to light their way home after a hard day of peaceful protesting.
I have already stated that I don't doubt at all that LOOTERS threw molotov cocktails at buildings. I am doubting they threw them at police officers.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the useful differential here. One is just as bad as the other, in my opinion. In either case, the use of deadly force should be on the table.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,11:58 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,11:23 am)
QUOTE
I thought the post was directed at how expensive and heavy handed it was to show up with bulletproof vests so I adressed the issue of the heavy handed thuggish police wearing bulletproof vests.
Did you want me to also make fun of your complaint that law enforcement showed up on someone's property to seize an illegally imported vehicle that is evidence in a criminal case?
Did you want me to also make fun of your complaint that law enforcement showed up on someone's property to seize an illegally imported vehicle that is evidence in a criminal case?
Actually, the main point of my comment was the fact that a bunch of DHS agents were involved. Homeland Security. How do the vehicles seized impact the security of the homeland. An officer or investigator of some sort couldn't have gone to the houses of the people who bought the vehicles and discussed things with them? Investigated if the vehicles were indeed illegal? It wasn't the fault of the owners if these vehicles were meddled with to pass inspections.
We have huge financial problems, but DHS and other agencies are being sent out with helicopters and military vehicles in some instances to deal with crimes that really don't warrant such a huge operation.
Botto:
QUOTE
I'm sorry, but I don't see the useful differential here. One is just as bad as the other, in my opinion. In either case, the use of deadly force should be on the table.
Botto, I am not saying force should not be used against people destroying property, especially the level of destruction that has happened in Ferguson. The point I am trying to make is that while so much of the looting and arson was going on, the police were not doing much about it at all. They were at the site of the protests in droves, pointing guns at the protesters and dressed like an army. While business owners and some of the protesters were actually guarding businesses and trying to stop looters. And I agree with MADDOG, that this type of presence will most likely inflame tensions that are already too high. Creating more anger and problems.
After being highly criticized by so many people about excessive force and looking like a military unit, the police said they were being this way because molotov cocktails were thrown at THEM personally. That would make the situation more understandable. But I have seen nothing that shows their version of events.
The population of Ferguson is like 20,000? How many LEO's have been on the scene?
So if they were dressing and behaving in that way, why not go after looters instead of the aggressive way they were with the protesters?
And why threaten, harass and arrest so many journalists? So maybe some of these police have a difficult time discerning the good guys from the bad guys? For crying out loud, 2 of the reporters arrested were inside a McDonalds charging their equipment. No looters were inside, no chaos, no problems in the McDonalds. And the police knew those men were reporters.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,12:18 pm
QUOTE
Actually, the main point of my comment was the fact that a bunch of DHS agents were involved. Homeland Security. How do the vehicles seized impact the security of the homeland.
So you wouldn't have a problem if Customs and Border Protection would have seized the illegally imported vehicles?
< http://www.cbp.gov/about >
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 20 2014,12:32 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,12:18 pm)
QUOTE
So you wouldn't have a problem if Customs and Border Protection would have seized the illegally imported vehicles?
< http://www.cbp.gov/about >
< http://www.cbp.gov/about >
They can't even handle the border crossings properly, but I'd be willing to bet they could show up a some woman's house before daybreak and < force her to strip at gunpoint >.
Posse Comitatus
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,12:42 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,12:18 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Actually, the main point of my comment was the fact that a bunch of DHS agents were involved. Homeland Security. How do the vehicles seized impact the security of the homeland.
So you wouldn't have a problem if Customs and Border Protection would have seized the illegally imported vehicles?
< http://www.cbp.gov/about >
Why did you leave out the rest of my comment?
QUOTE
An officer or investigator of some sort couldn't have gone to the houses of the people who bought the vehicles and discussed things with them? Investigated if the vehicles were indeed illegal? It wasn't the fault of the owners if these vehicles were meddled with to pass inspections.
We have huge financial problems, but DHS and other agencies are being sent out with helicopters and military vehicles in some instances to deal with crimes that really don't warrant such a huge operation.
We have huge financial problems, but DHS and other agencies are being sent out with helicopters and military vehicles in some instances to deal with crimes that really don't warrant such a huge operation.
Why do you feel the need to always twist things, derail topics and try to destroy discussions on almost everything in your own forum?
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 20 2014,12:47 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 20 2014,11:58 am)
QUOTE
While business owners and some of the protesters were actually guarding businesses and trying to stop looters. And I agree with MADDOG, that this type of presence will most likely inflame tensions that are already too high. Creating more anger and problems.
This is my main beef with all of this, that this behaviour is somehow justified, to any degree, as though accountability is subjective and variable, and not the boolean operator it should be. The throwing of Molotov cocktails is not justified by anger, black rage, or any other thing. It should be treated as an act of domestic terrorism, and dealt with accordingly, not handled with kid gloves due to the perception that more riots are pending if we don't handle it with kid gloves.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,12:56 pm
< http://www.cbp.gov/newsroo...ehicles >
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,1:04 pm
QUOTE
Why do you feel the need to always twist things, derail topics and try to destroy discussions on almost everything in your own forum?
Well I guess I shouldnt have derailed the topic by responding to your BS post about the evil feds doing their job.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,1:10 pm
(Botto 82 @ Aug. 20 2014,12:47 pm)
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 20 2014,11:58 am)
QUOTE
While business owners and some of the protesters were actually guarding businesses and trying to stop looters. And I agree with MADDOG, that this type of presence will most likely inflame tensions that are already too high. Creating more anger and problems.
This is my main beef with all of this, that this behaviour is somehow justified, to any degree, as though accountability is subjective and variable, and not the boolean operator it should be. The throwing of Molotov cocktails is not justified by anger, black rage, or any other thing. It should be treated as an act of domestic terrorism, and dealt with accordingly, not handled with kid gloves due to the perception that more riots are pending if we don't handle it with kid gloves.
Botto, I am not justifying the throwing of molotov cocktails. I am pointing out how the police aggression has been directed at the protesters, not the people causing the destruction. Go after the looters and people throwing molotov cocktails. Don't drive big military vehicles into the areas the protesters are and point machine guns at them when they are not the ones wreaking havoc. The people looting and destroying property are idiots, and they are the ones who need to be dealt with.
Throwing bottles and rocks are stupid and shouldn't be happening, but most of the protesters have been trying to stop those stupid actions by a stupid few as well.
MADDOG:
QUOTE
They can't even handle the border crossings properly, but I'd be willing to bet they could show up a some woman's house before daybreak and force her to strip at gunpoint.
How have things like this become acceptable in this country? They can smash into peoples homes like this, flash bangs, killing pets, toss people face down on the floor, not identify themselves or explain why they are even there? Treating people and entire families like they are terrorists.
< http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story...at-raid >
< http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/18/48482.htm >
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,1:37 pm
QUOTE
How have things like this become acceptable in this country? They can smash into peoples homes like this, flash bangs, killing pets, toss people face down on the floor, not identify themselves or explain why they are even there? Treating people and entire families like they are terrorists.
< http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story...at-raid >
< http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/18/48482.htm >
Seriously, if you don't want the police kicking in your door don't let the neighbor sell meth out of your house.
QUOTE
Appellant cites no authority to support his argument that the failure to recover the government-buy-fund money invalidates the search warrant, and we find the argument unpersuasive.
Appellant characterizes the search as a mistaken search of the wrong house and argues that, even if the search warrant was valid, police were required to stop the search upon learning that Ybarra lived next door. But, as already stated, Ybarra's ownership of or residence at 171 Annapolis was not the nexus between the crime and the place to be searched. The nexus was the fact that the crime of sale of methamphetamine had occurred at 171 Annapolis.
< http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1636105.html >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,2:08 pm
They "handcuffed all of the inhabitants of the plaintiffs' home except plaintiff Analese Franco who was forced, virtually naked, from her bed onto the floor at gunpoint by officers of the St. Paul Police Department SWAT team and officers of the St. Paul Police Department."The complaint states: "Upon forcibly breaching the plaintiffs' home, defendants terrorized the plaintiffs at gun and rifle point.
"Each plaintiff was forced to the floor at gun and rifle point and handcuffed behind their backs.
"Defendants shot and killed the family dog and forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour while defendants continued to search the plaintiffs' home."
One child "was kicked in the side, handcuffed and searched at gunpoint," the family says.
Another child, a girl, "a diabetic, was handcuffed at gunpoint and prevented by officer from obtaining and taking her medication, thus induced a diabetic episode as a result of low-blood sugar levels."
QUOTE
Seriously, if you don't want the police kicking in your door don't let the neighbor sell meth out of your house.
And make sure you get a better lawyer.
I think someone already posted this one after it happened.
From the images in the video, you’d think they were looking for an escaped murderer or a house full of hit men. No, none of that. They were looking for a few people suspected of credit card fraud. None of the people they were looking for were inside of the house, nor was any of the stolen property they were looking for. They did arrest two houseguests of the family on what the news report says were unrelated charges, one for a probation violation and one for possession of illegal drugs.
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rorized >
Posted by Botto 82 on Aug. 20 2014,2:19 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 20 2014,2:08 pm)
QUOTE
They "handcuffed all of the inhabitants of the plaintiffs' home except plaintiff Analese Franco who was forced, virtually naked, from her bed onto the floor at gunpoint by officers of the St. Paul Police Department SWAT team and officers of the St. Paul Police Department."
The complaint states: "Upon forcibly breaching the plaintiffs' home, defendants terrorized the plaintiffs at gun and rifle point.
"Each plaintiff was forced to the floor at gun and rifle point and handcuffed behind their backs.
"Defendants shot and killed the family dog and forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour while defendants continued to search the plaintiffs' home."
One child "was kicked in the side, handcuffed and searched at gunpoint," the family says.
Another child, a girl, "a diabetic, was handcuffed at gunpoint and prevented by officer from obtaining and taking her medication, thus induced a diabetic episode as a result of low-blood sugar levels."
The complaint states: "Upon forcibly breaching the plaintiffs' home, defendants terrorized the plaintiffs at gun and rifle point.
"Each plaintiff was forced to the floor at gun and rifle point and handcuffed behind their backs.
"Defendants shot and killed the family dog and forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour while defendants continued to search the plaintiffs' home."
One child "was kicked in the side, handcuffed and searched at gunpoint," the family says.
Another child, a girl, "a diabetic, was handcuffed at gunpoint and prevented by officer from obtaining and taking her medication, thus induced a diabetic episode as a result of low-blood sugar levels."
There is NO justification for this whatsoever.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 20 2014,3:03 pm
^^^Good thing they were in St.Paul, Mpls cops would have probably shot them all...twice!
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,3:16 pm
QUOTE
And make sure you get a better lawyer.
They wouldn't need a lawyer if they didn't let their neighbor sell meth out of their house.
These are not innocent victims and clearly the district court and appeals court agreed with law enforcement and prosecutors. And if the cops did all these horrible things why didn't they sue? Maybe its because their story sounds like BS to the average person.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 20 2014,4:10 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 20 2014,12:42 pm)
QUOTE
Why do you feel the need to always twist things, derail topics and try to destroy discussions on almost everything in your own forum?
Most of the left media is questioning this militarization of police across the country. Liberal just wants to argue with anyone he dislikes or feels he's more superior. Right or wrong. There were/are a whole lot of flippin' R's who supported the < 1033 Program > as well as looney lefts questioning the < War Gear Flows to Police Departments >.
I Would think that only those people who have socialistic desires feel more secure now that anyone with a badge thinks he's a commando.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,4:15 pm
Maybe I just like the idea of cops going home to their family at the end of their shift? You antigovernment kooks hate the cops until you need one, then you can't dial 911 fast enough. Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 20 2014,4:30 pm
There's a lot of good cops out there, but there are a few...
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,4:50 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,3:16 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
And make sure you get a better lawyer.
They wouldn't need a lawyer if they didn't let their neighbor sell meth out of their house.
These are not innocent victims and clearly the district court and appeals court agreed with law enforcement and prosecutors. And if the cops did all these horrible things why didn't they sue? Maybe its because their story sounds like BS to the average person.
They tried. That's why I said they needed a better lawyer.
< http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys...6-0.pdf >
Children are not innocent victims?
The confidential informer told police he had seen 5 pounds of meth in a spaghetti pot? I have never seen meth, but that seems like A LOT. Is meth heavy?
What did the guy ended up being charged with and convicted of?Possession of a firearm by an ineligible person because there was a .22 in the house.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 20 2014,4:55 pm
I take it that crimes involving the need for military style (SWAT) < raids have increased a few percentages >over the years.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,5:04 pm
MADDOG, I agree, but the R's and D's should't have let it get this far in the first place. SB, I'd say most police officers are good guys. The bad ones are pretty dang bad.I like how LIbERal keeps repeating how anyone who questions government or police actions "hates cops". Even though I haven't seen one person on this forum say they hate cops. Even though those of us he is accusing have said many times how we respect and appreciate police. I didn't even join in bashing the one certain officer that LIbERal himself gave his opinion on.
I don't hate cops. MADDOG doesn't hate cops.
Crime is way down in America. Police killed in line of duty is way down. Militarized raids are way up. Botched militarized raids are way up. Have the equipment, might as well use it.
John Oliver cracks me up. Did you watch that whole clip MADDOG? Damn funny. Was it you who put in the link and information on botched SWAT raids awhile back?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,5:11 pm
QUOTE
Children are not innocent victims?
The confidential informer told police he had seen 5 pounds of meth in a spaghetti pot? I have never seen meth, but that seems like A LOT. Is meth heavy?
What did the guy ended up being charged with and convicted of?Possession of a firearm by an ineligible person because there was a .22 in the house.
The parents made the kids victims by allowing drugs to be sold out of the house, and allowing meth in the house.
I don't know if meth is heavy but I do know that there are some large spaghetti pots and smaller ones and I'm sure I could fit 5lbs of sugar, flour, or most any powder in even a small spaghetti pot.
The felon was charged for being in possession of a firearm because he was a felon in possession of a firearm and admitted it was his gun. Did you even read the appellate court decision?
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,5:20 pm
QUOTE
I like how LIbERal keeps repeating how anyone who questions government or police actions "hates cops". Even though I haven't seen one person on this forum say they hate cops. Even though those of us he is accusing have said many times how we respect and appreciate police.
Just because you say you support law enforcement prior to bashing cops doesn't fool anyone. That's a bit like starting out a racist statement with, "I'm not a racist but..."
QUOTE
Police killed in line of duty is way down.
Of course it never occured to you that this might be because cops have become more militarized?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,5:22 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,5:11 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Children are not innocent victims?
The confidential informer told police he had seen 5 pounds of meth in a spaghetti pot? I have never seen meth, but that seems like A LOT. Is meth heavy?
What did the guy ended up being charged with and convicted of?Possession of a firearm by an ineligible person because there was a .22 in the house.
The parents made the kids victims by allowing drugs to be sold out of the house, and allowing meth in the house.
I don't know if meth is heavy but I do know that there are some large spaghetti pots and smaller ones and I'm sure I could fit 5lbs of sugar, flour, or most any powder in even a small spaghetti pot.
The felon was charged for being in possession of a firearm because he was a felon in possession of a firearm and admitted it was his gun. Did you even read the appellate court decision?
Uh, yeah I did. The point was, that's the only thing they could find and use against him.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,5:33 pm
I guess in your twisted world view the cops should have just ignored the felon in possession of a handgun because they couldn't find the meth?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,5:35 pm
LIbERal, I'm criticizing the actions of some, and pointing out how, I believe, as a whole, the militarization of police is a bad thing. I believe it is dangerous and entirely too expensive in a country having so many financial problems. Especially since crime and police fatalities have gone down so much. QUOTE
Of course it never occured to you that this might be because cops have become more militarized?
Nope, since it began about a decade before militarization started and has remained relatively level ever since. Even though the population is far greater than it used to be and there are far more police than there used to be.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,5:40 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,5:33 pm)
QUOTE
I guess in your twisted world view the cops should have just ignored the felon in possession of a handgun because they couldn't find the meth?
Um, yeah... that's exactly what I mean...
If you ever decide to get some help with your reading comprehension, you might also want to look into possibly trying to get some help building some critical thinking skills.
So yet again a topic has devolved into semantics and nit picking instead of actual discussion, and it gets really really old. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks so. So I'm done (hopefully) with the pointless back and forth between us. I'll just try to ignore you for the rest of the topic.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,6:29 pm
A cato institute study in 1999 said the militarization started 20 years prior to that. That would be 1979 when there were 215 police officers killed in the line of duty, last year there was 100. So once again you're full of BS. < http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html >
< http://www.cato.org/publica...rtments >
QUOTE
So yet again a topic has devolved into semantics and nit picking instead of actual discussion, and it gets really really old. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks so. So I'm done (hopefully) with the pointless back and forth between us. I'll just try to ignore you for the rest of the topic.
Semantics? You complain that a felon in possession of a handgun was charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun when the cops served a warrant looking for 5lbs of meth and you're so crazy that you think because they only found a handgun and a small amount of weed they should have just let him go?
Don't expect me to ignore your crazy BS anti government/conspiracy theory ramblings.If you want to post your crazy crap without people calling you out then maybe you should consider posting on infowars.com, naturalnews.com or beforeitsnews.com with the rest of the crazies
Have you considered my suggestion about getting some better mental health care because whatever you're doing isn't working?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 20 2014,8:27 pm
(Liberal @ Aug. 20 2014,6:29 pm)
QUOTE
A cato institute study in 1999 said the militarization started 20 years prior to that. That would be 1979 when there were 215 police officers killed in the line of duty, last year there was 100. So once again you're full of BS.
< http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html >
< http://www.cato.org/publica...rtments >
So yet again a topic has devolved into semantics and nit picking instead of actual discussion, and it gets really really old. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks so. So I'm done (hopefully) with the pointless back and forth between us. I'll just try to ignore you for the rest of the topic.
Semantics? You complain that a felon in possession of a handgun was charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun when the cops served a warrant looking for 5lbs of meth and you're so crazy that you think because they only found a handgun and a small amount of weed they should have just let him go?
Don't expect me to ignore your crazy BS anti government/conspiracy theory ramblings.If you want to post your crazy crap without people calling you out then maybe you should consider posting on infowars.com, naturalnews.com or beforeitsnews.com with the rest of the crazies
Have you considered my suggestion about getting some better mental health care because whatever you're doing isn't working?
< http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html >
< http://www.cato.org/publica...rtments >
QUOTE
So yet again a topic has devolved into semantics and nit picking instead of actual discussion, and it gets really really old. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks so. So I'm done (hopefully) with the pointless back and forth between us. I'll just try to ignore you for the rest of the topic.
Semantics? You complain that a felon in possession of a handgun was charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun when the cops served a warrant looking for 5lbs of meth and you're so crazy that you think because they only found a handgun and a small amount of weed they should have just let him go?
Don't expect me to ignore your crazy BS anti government/conspiracy theory ramblings.If you want to post your crazy crap without people calling you out then maybe you should consider posting on infowars.com, naturalnews.com or beforeitsnews.com with the rest of the crazies
Have you considered my suggestion about getting some better mental health care because whatever you're doing isn't working?
QUOTE
When and why was the program created?
Answer: In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DOD personal property to federal and state agencies for use in counter-drug activities. Congress later passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; this act allows all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission. Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests.
Answer: In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DOD personal property to federal and state agencies for use in counter-drug activities. Congress later passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; this act allows all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission. Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests.
If you have a problem with the information, take it up with these guys:
< http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/pages/1033programfaqs.aspx >
That Cato paper you linked to doesn't speak very well about police militarization does it.
Here's some other good reads from Cato on the militarization of police:
< http://object.cato.org/sites...1n4.pdf >
< http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa128.pdf >
Here's an interesting recent article:
QUOTE
Ilya’s post below takes on the astonishing claim by Washington Post blogger Paul Waldman that libertarians have not spoken out against the militarization of law enforcement. To the contrary, they have doing so for decades. The Cato Institute, for which I am Associate Policy Analyst, has for the last decade encouraged the work of Radley Balko, who is the nation’s leading journalist on the subject of police militarization.
As for the rest of your comment. You must not think the people in this forum are very intelligent.
Can we stop this now? You and I shouldn't be enemies, so I don't know why we keep acting as if we are.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 20 2014,9:06 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Aug. 20 2014,8:27 pm)
QUOTE
As for the rest of your comment. You must not think the people in this forum are very intelligent.
Can we stop this now? You and I shouldn't be enemies, so I don't know why we keep acting as if we are.
Can we stop this now? You and I shouldn't be enemies, so I don't know why we keep acting as if we are.
Here they come.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 20 2014,10:12 pm
Who cares when the military started giving them surplus? The militarization started before that, the Cadillac Gage Peacekeeper Armored Personnel Carriers have been in use since the mid 80s, New York swat had a tracked APC in the 70's, and Cleveland had one before that called Mother.So I'm going to have to agree with Cato institutes date of 1979.
QUOTE
You and I shouldn't be enemies, so I don't know why we keep acting as if we are.
There isn't one crazy conspiracy theorist on this forum that hasn't been ridiculed by me, and as long as I'm around I'll continue to ridicule you kooks. The thing that bugs me about you kooks is that even when your goofy conspiracies like FEMA camps, FEMA coffins, Obama buying up all the ammo, Sandy Hook being a hoax, multiple shooters in Aurora, and GM running lights don't pan out you just ignore the old conspiracy and start a new one. Then you nuts go around saying us normal folks just aren't paying attention or we aren't "awake" yet.
And I don't hate you crazies, I actually feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living in a world where the government sprays aluminum on you from planes 35,000ft in the air.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 21 2014,2:33 am
LIbERal:QUOTE
I actually feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living in a world where the government sprays aluminum on you from planes 35,000ft in the air.
All this time I have felt sorry for you!! I can't imagine what it must be like to feel the need to twist everything someone says, or outright lie about what was said, just because I don't like the subject or person. Or is it that you only care about winning an argument no matter what, instead of finding out the truth of things? Or you just really hate when a person has opposing opinions from yours?
You can't stop! You lie, twist, lie some more, and when it's not working you call a person a bunch of names. Over and over and over. I think you have lied, twisted and called names in every single one of your posts in this topic! Do you honestly think others are oblivious to it?
I really think it's a pathological problem with you.
Posted by grassman on Aug. 21 2014,5:47 am
pssst, roz. 
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 21 2014,7:33 am
You find THE funniest pictures Grassman!
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 21 2014,7:34 am
^^^ sorry Roz but that's funny as hell
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 21 2014,7:36 am
I want this, looks fun$6500
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 21 2014,8:11 am
See how this all started is you claimed the police were brutalizing these peaceful protesters. I posted one picture pointing out a thug in front of a burned down store. Then you started with the conspiracy crap saying that the police weren't arresting the thugs they were only going after peaceful protestor and claimed the police, media and government were lying about molotov cocktails being thrown. I supply you with four pictures of thugs with molotov cocktails and you claim there's no proof they threw them directly at police.Then you changed the subject to a BS story about the poor innocent family that didn't do anything and the horrible police kicked in their door and shot their family pet. When I post the true story from court documents that says meth was being dealt out of the house and they had a CI that swore he saw 5lbs of meth in the house. You respond to that by starting your victim whine and claiming I changed the subject.
Your last post is funny because you accuse me of everything you accused our local department of human services of doing. I guess if things are not going your way then you claim everyone is lying, twisting your words, or just making things up about you.
It must suck being victimized by everyone.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 21 2014,8:28 am
I'm giving the others in the forum a lot more credit than you. I think anyone who has been following the topic, and almost every other topic you and I disagree on, can tell who is twisting, lying and obfuscating.This constant back and forth between us is ridiculous and absolutely pointless... Unless what you are really trying to do is destroy your own forum.
And it's not just me. You use your twist and lie tricks on most people you disagree with.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 21 2014,8:39 am
Poor poor Rosalind always a victim. Problem with your last post is everyone can go back and see who started namecalling and it was you calling me a liar after I posted the picture of the peaceful protester.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 22 2014,7:21 pm
If I was a person who always considered myself a victim, I most likely would have thought you made some sort of veiled threat when you said Post 38 < http://www.albertlea.com/cgi-bin...9;st=40 >
QUOTE
Seriously, how stupid does someone have to be to think that a violent attack isn't a violent attack if the wrong person is attacked? So if I beat the snot out of the kooks kid thinking it's someone else then it's not a violent attack because I accidentally beat the snot out of the wrong person?.
Or when one of my comments had been changed and for some reason looked like Jim had written a comment with my account, as if Jim had somehow been in my profile, my account, and mistakenly wrote a comment using MY account. - If I considered myself a victim I might have whined and demanded some sort of answer as to why and how that happened. I just asked if it was some sort of glitch. By the way, I never did get an answer to that question.
If anyone in this forum should be considered a victim it's you. Someone who at one point opposed the invasion of Iraq and says things like:
White Phosphorus: < http://www.albertlea.com/cgi-bin...;t=3037 >
QUOTE
So are you suggesting we should pay them back for defending their country after we invaded it over faulty/manufactured intelligence?
- Do you realize that the estimates of civilians killed in Iraq range from 26,000 to 100,000 but we have no way of knowing the actual number because we don't keep track of collateral damage. Is that your idea of confining a battle to a war zone?
- Are you suggesting that we shouldn't question anything our soldiers do because it might hurt their moral?
- And your ignorance is reprehensible to me. You're just another wacko that thinks everything Christians/Americans do is right and just, because you believe God sees things the Christian/American way. And I can imagine that it's an absolute foreign thought to you to think that maybe God sees things the Muslim way or the Jewish way.
- For some odd reason the American media doesn't seem to show us the whole picture of the Israel, Palestinian conflict.
- The Kurd wrote the Pentagon report
Are you going to Blame the Kurds for the WMD lies also?
Bush didn't lie, he was just repeating what he heard from a Kurd.
- Do you realize that the estimates of civilians killed in Iraq range from 26,000 to 100,000 but we have no way of knowing the actual number because we don't keep track of collateral damage. Is that your idea of confining a battle to a war zone?
- Are you suggesting that we shouldn't question anything our soldiers do because it might hurt their moral?
- And your ignorance is reprehensible to me. You're just another wacko that thinks everything Christians/Americans do is right and just, because you believe God sees things the Christian/American way. And I can imagine that it's an absolute foreign thought to you to think that maybe God sees things the Muslim way or the Jewish way.
- For some odd reason the American media doesn't seem to show us the whole picture of the Israel, Palestinian conflict.
- The Kurd wrote the Pentagon report
Are you going to Blame the Kurds for the WMD lies also?
Bush didn't lie, he was just repeating what he heard from a Kurd.
But a few years later defends the US planning and involvement in the deaths of countless innocent civilians with a comment like:
QUOTE
Do you have a better way to get a rogue regime to play well with others?
http://www.albertlea.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=10264;hl=ammo
Someone who at one point said things like this:
Zionist attack flotilla: http://www.albertlea.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=8037;st=50
QUOTE
-There's a special place in hell for the Zionists
-They were over 100 miles away from the blockade in international waters when the moronic Isreali Defense Force launched an armed assault on a ship full of civilians.
Best thing about this deal is Turkey is railing against Israel. If it takes Muslims in Turkey to end the occupation in Palestine I'm 100% ok with that.
As far as I'm concerned I'd like to see Israel wiped off the map just like the Soviet Union was. I'm sick of watching American soldiers die over the Zionist Jews.
- Why are you such a puppet to the Zionists?
- So you think that land is the Jews, and that they should wipe out the Muslims. How about we let Israel stand on it's own and watch the Muslims wipe them off the map once again?
Why is it that sheep like you don't educate yourself on the subject instead of swallowing everything the Zionists feed you?
- Here's what happens in America when you exercise your freedom of speech against the Zionists.
- That's what happens when a Middle Easterners uses their freedom of speech to point out the war crimes that the Zionists commit, or the fact that there would be a lot less fighting in the Middle East if the Zionists would un-ass the area.
-They were over 100 miles away from the blockade in international waters when the moronic Isreali Defense Force launched an armed assault on a ship full of civilians.
Best thing about this deal is Turkey is railing against Israel. If it takes Muslims in Turkey to end the occupation in Palestine I'm 100% ok with that.
As far as I'm concerned I'd like to see Israel wiped off the map just like the Soviet Union was. I'm sick of watching American soldiers die over the Zionist Jews.
- Why are you such a puppet to the Zionists?
- So you think that land is the Jews, and that they should wipe out the Muslims. How about we let Israel stand on it's own and watch the Muslims wipe them off the map once again?
Why is it that sheep like you don't educate yourself on the subject instead of swallowing everything the Zionists feed you?
- Here's what happens in America when you exercise your freedom of speech against the Zionists.
- That's what happens when a Middle Easterners uses their freedom of speech to point out the war crimes that the Zionists commit, or the fact that there would be a lot less fighting in the Middle East if the Zionists would un-ass the area.
But a few years later the same person who said those things apparently has no problem with anything going on in the country. Has nothing to say about reporters being harassed, threatened and arrested. Has no problem with government whistle-blowers being harassed, threatened and arrested. Has no problem with the government giving itself the power to indefinitely detain american citizens and strip them of rights without even having to show proof of any wrong-doing or even intent. Has no problem with the government saying it has the authority to kill american citizens with drone strikes on american soil without having to show proof of any wrong-doing or even intent. Has no problem with the increasing secrecy and diminishing transparency in our government.
Are you that big a victim of the left/right paradigm that as long as the President has a D tied to his name, that everything that happens is just hunky dory? And even apparently somehow that makes things in the past also miraculously hunky dory? Do you still think some people are sheep and puppets to zionists? Do reporters only get fired for exercising freedom of speech against zionists? Did that problem magically go away once Obama got into office? Are reporters only being harassed, threatened and jailed for speaking out against zionists?
I'm not a victim. You are.
Posted by Liberal on Aug. 22 2014,7:42 pm
What's your point? Do you think I've changed my mind about zionist occupation of Palestine and how the government and media openly support them? Or are you suggesting that I'm a conspiracy theorist because I think they get treated favorably? I'm pretty sure the billions of dollars in direct military aid to the zionest scum is proof we favor one side over the other.
We forgot to tell you that we sometimes let Jimhanson change posts, but he's gotta put them back exactly the way he found them if anyone asks any questions.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Aug. 25 2014,6:52 am
(Liberal @ Aug. 22 2014,7:42 pm)
QUOTE
What's your point? Do you think I've changed my mind about zionist occupation of Palestine and how the government and media openly support them? Or are you suggesting that I'm a conspiracy theorist because I think they get treated favorably?
I'm pretty sure the billions of dollars in direct military aid to the zionest scum is proof we favor one side over the other.
We forgot to tell you that we sometimes let Jimhanson change posts, but he's gotta put them back exactly the way he found them if anyone asks any questions.
I'm pretty sure the billions of dollars in direct military aid to the zionest scum is proof we favor one side over the other.
We forgot to tell you that we sometimes let Jimhanson change posts, but he's gotta put them back exactly the way he found them if anyone asks any questions.
But a few years later the same person who said those things apparently has no problem with anything going on in the country. Has nothing to say about reporters being harassed, threatened and arrested. Has no problem with government whistle-blowers being harassed, threatened and arrested. Has no problem with the government giving itself the power to indefinitely detain american citizens and strip them of rights without even having to show proof of any wrong-doing or even intent. Has no problem with the government saying it has the authority to kill american citizens with drone strikes on american soil without having to show proof of any wrong-doing or even intent. Has no problem with the increasing secrecy and diminishing transparency in our government.
Are you that big a victim of the left/right paradigm that as long as the President has a D tied to his name, that everything that happens is just hunky dory? And even apparently somehow that makes things in the past also miraculously hunky dory? Do you still think some people are sheep and puppets to zionists? Do reporters only get fired for exercising freedom of speech against zionists? Did that problem magically go away once Obama got into office? Are reporters only being harassed, threatened and jailed for speaking out against zionists?
QUOTE
We forgot to tell you that we sometimes let Jimhanson change posts, but he's gotta put them back exactly the way he found them if anyone asks any questions.
By the way, I never did get an answer to that question.
Posted by irisheyes on Aug. 25 2014,8:07 am
(Self-Banished @ Aug. 21 2014,7:36 am)
QUOTE
I want this, looks fun
$6500
$6500
Right, but I'd hate to have to buy a new set of tires for that.
Let me know if you get it, I might need a hand moving a sofa. "Hey SB, you still got that '84 AM General? Bring it down, I'll give you a few bucks for gas."
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 28 2014,2:48 pm
(irisheyes @ Aug. 25 2014,8:07 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Aug. 21 2014,7:36 am)
QUOTE
I want this, looks fun
$6500
$6500
Right, but I'd hate to have to buy a new set of tires for that.
Let me know if you get it, I might need a hand moving a sofa. "Hey SB, you still got that '84 AM General? Bring it down, I'll give you a few bucks for gas."
Tires run about $900 a piece for that rig, a bit more expensive than my other trucks
A company logo on the side and presto! Tax write off!
You couldn't afford me
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2014,9:51 am
QUOTE
Paul said he was horrified by the “thoroughly un-American” policing tactics seen in Ferguson and demanded an immediate end to a similar Pentagon program, called 1033, that has provided 12,000 bayonets, 5,200 humvees and 617 mine-resistant armoured vehicles (MRAPs) to civilian forces across the US.
Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, said committee investigators had found there were now more MRAPs in the hands of local police forces than the national guard and that 36% of all surplus equipment received direct from the military was brand new or unused.
What in the world are we doing buying stuff that is not used,” asked McCaskill. “I want to make sure we are clear about how out of control this is.”
A list of smaller police departments receiving MRAPs under the 1033 programme disclosed by committee staff claimed one Oklahoma county sheriff’s department with just one full-time sworn officer had received two of the 18-tonne vehicles alone.
Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, said committee investigators had found there were now more MRAPs in the hands of local police forces than the national guard and that 36% of all surplus equipment received direct from the military was brand new or unused.
What in the world are we doing buying stuff that is not used,” asked McCaskill. “I want to make sure we are clear about how out of control this is.”
A list of smaller police departments receiving MRAPs under the 1033 programme disclosed by committee staff claimed one Oklahoma county sheriff’s department with just one full-time sworn officer had received two of the 18-tonne vehicles alone.
< http://www.theguardian.com/world...erguson >
It's so unbelievably ridiculous. This country has become a stupid joke.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2014,11:59 am
The police are obviously going to take over the country any day now using mine resistant vehicles. All you preppers better head for your holes, we'll let y'all know when it's safe to come out.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2014,1:11 pm
(Liberal @ Sep. 11 2014,11:59 am)
QUOTE
The police are obviously going to take over the country any day now using mine resistant vehicles. All you preppers better head for your holes, we'll let y'all know when it's safe to come out.
Is there any topic you don't try to twist or lie about? I don't think a single person has said anything about police taking over the country. We've discussed how dangerous it is, and how it doesn't make sense economically.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2014,4:28 pm
Do you think that this is a new topic? Or do you just have to play the victim everytime I post something.Dangerous for who? You think it would be more economical to keep the surplus gear instead of giving them to law enforcement?
Don't you think you should be grabbing the freeze dried food and heading for the bunker now that police have mine resistant vehicles? I promise we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2014,4:54 pm
QUOTE
Dangerous for who?
Pretty much everyone? Did you not look at the link MADDOG provided about botched SWAT raids? Or read any of the CATO papers you and I both posted to?
QUOTE
You think it would be more economical to keep the surplus gear instead of giving them to law enforcement?
It wouldn't be more economical? Why can't the military use them? If the military keeps getting so much surplus, maybe a committee should be formed to try to rein in out of control military spending.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2014,5:37 pm
So how are will all in danger by the police having a mine resistant vehicle.It's military surplus, the military has no use for it. How would it be cheaper for the military to maintain it?
Posted by grassman on Sep. 11 2014,5:40 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Sep. 11 2014,4:54 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Dangerous for who?
Pretty much everyone? Did you not look at the link MADDOG provided about botched SWAT raids? Or read any of the CATO papers you and I both posted to?
QUOTE
You think it would be more economical to keep the surplus gear instead of giving them to law enforcement?
It wouldn't be more economical? Why can't the military use them? If the military keeps getting so much surplus, maybe a committee should be formed to try to rein in out of control military spending.
Right on!
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2014,6:47 pm
(Liberal @ Sep. 11 2014,5:37 pm)
QUOTE
So how are will all in danger by the police having a mine resistant vehicle.
It's military surplus, the military has no use for it. How would it be cheaper for the military to maintain it?
It's military surplus, the military has no use for it. How would it be cheaper for the military to maintain it?
From the CATO report you linked to:
QUOTE
The problem is that the mindset of the soldier is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer. Police officers confront not an“enemy” but individuals who are protected by the Bill of Rights. Confusing the police func-tion with the military function can lead to dan-gerous and unintended consequences—such as unnecessary shootings and killings.
...
By virtue of their training and specialized armament,state and local police officers are adopting the tactics and mindset of their military mentors. The problem is that the actions and values of the police officer are distinct-ly different from those of the warrior. The job of a police officer is to keep the peace,but not by just any means. Police officers are expected to apprehend suspected lawbreakers while adhering to constitutional procedures. They are expected to use mini-mum force and to deliver suspects to a court of law. The soldier, on the other hand, is an instrument of war. In boot camp, recruits are trained to inflict maximum damage on enemy personnel. Confusing the police function with the military function can have dangerous consequences. As Albuquerque police chief Jerry Glavin has noted, “If [cops] have a mind-set that the goal is to take out a citizen, it will happen.”8Paramilitarism threatens civil liberties, con-stitutional norms, and the well-being of all citizens. Thus, the use of paramilitary tac-tics in everyday police work should alarm people of goodwill from across the political spectrum.
...
SWAT teams are created to deal with emergency situations that are beyond the capacity of the ordinary street cop. But, as time passes, inactive SWAT units tend to jettison their original, limited mission for more routine policing activities.Local jurisdictions should carefully assess the need for SWAT units and guard against the danger of mission creep. SWAT teams do possess specialized skills, but they should only be deployed on those extraor-dinary occasions when their skills are neces-sary—such as a hostage situation.
...
Congress should also abolish all military-civilian law enforcement joint task forces and see to it that all military hardware loaned, given, or sold to law enforce-ment agencies is destroyed or returned. Armored personnel carriers and machine guns, should not be a part of everyday law enforcement in a free society.
...
By virtue of their training and specialized armament,state and local police officers are adopting the tactics and mindset of their military mentors. The problem is that the actions and values of the police officer are distinct-ly different from those of the warrior. The job of a police officer is to keep the peace,but not by just any means. Police officers are expected to apprehend suspected lawbreakers while adhering to constitutional procedures. They are expected to use mini-mum force and to deliver suspects to a court of law. The soldier, on the other hand, is an instrument of war. In boot camp, recruits are trained to inflict maximum damage on enemy personnel. Confusing the police function with the military function can have dangerous consequences. As Albuquerque police chief Jerry Glavin has noted, “If [cops] have a mind-set that the goal is to take out a citizen, it will happen.”8Paramilitarism threatens civil liberties, con-stitutional norms, and the well-being of all citizens. Thus, the use of paramilitary tac-tics in everyday police work should alarm people of goodwill from across the political spectrum.
...
SWAT teams are created to deal with emergency situations that are beyond the capacity of the ordinary street cop. But, as time passes, inactive SWAT units tend to jettison their original, limited mission for more routine policing activities.Local jurisdictions should carefully assess the need for SWAT units and guard against the danger of mission creep. SWAT teams do possess specialized skills, but they should only be deployed on those extraor-dinary occasions when their skills are neces-sary—such as a hostage situation.
...
Congress should also abolish all military-civilian law enforcement joint task forces and see to it that all military hardware loaned, given, or sold to law enforce-ment agencies is destroyed or returned. Armored personnel carriers and machine guns, should not be a part of everyday law enforcement in a free society.
QUOTE
It's military surplus, the military has no use for it. How would it be cheaper for the military to maintain it?
Well, since this country seems hellbent on starting wars with any country that it doesn't see eye to eye with, my guess is that it wouldn't be long before this "surplus" is actually needed. OR, maybe since 36% of the military equipment that has been given to local police hasn't even been used before, then MAYBE the military shouldn't have bought it in the first place?
Or maybe the US isn't having any financial problems??
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2014,7:08 pm
So how is a mine resistant vehicle going to cause more "unnecessary shootings and killings"?It doesn't matter why it's surplus, how is giving surplus to law enforcement cheaper than the military storing and maintaining it.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2014,7:22 pm
(Liberal @ Sep. 11 2014,7:08 pm)
QUOTE
So how is a mine resistant vehicle going to cause more "unnecessary shootings and killings"?
It doesn't matter why it's surplus, how is giving surplus to law enforcement cheaper than the military storing and maintaining it.
It doesn't matter why it's surplus, how is giving surplus to law enforcement cheaper than the military storing and maintaining it.
The topic is the militarization of police. Why do you just keep focusing on the police having MRAP's? It's more than that. I forgot about your reading comprehension and critical thinking disabilities.
QUOTE
It doesn't matter why it's surplus, how is giving surplus to law enforcement cheaper than the military storing and maintaining it.
How many more times and in how many different ways do I have to say "IF THIS COUNTRY IS HAVING SUCH BIG FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WHY ISN'T MILITARY SPENDING BEING REINED IN?" Among a gazillion other wasteful agencies/projects/programs.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2014,7:41 pm
So you're just sport bitching about the government again?A wartime military will always need more equipment than a peacetime military. I'd personally prefer that they have the equipment they need in wartime even if we end up with surplus in times of peace.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Sep. 11 2014,8:43 pm
QUOTE
So you're just sport bitching about the government again?
Sport? No, it's definitely not "sport". I don't happen to like having a government lying it's ass off about pretty much everything, or the mainstream "free" press helping the government lie it's ass off about pretty much everything. I don't like having a government going around meddling in so many other countries to further their own interests, and then sending our sons and daughters over to these countries when their meddling backfires or isn't getting the job done. I don't like our government killing innocent people to further their own interests. I don't understand how ANYONE can think that our constant BS around the world has done any good. I highly doubt so many countries would be in such bad shape if it wasn't for the US. And absolutely NOTHING done in so many of these countries is making us safer. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the United States government is the biggest, baddest, most advanced terrorist organization on the planet.
People should be like you and only bitch about the government when a republican is president? Does the government only lie and start bogus wars when a republican is president?
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 11 2014,9:53 pm
< http://www.mentalhealth.com/home/dx/paranoidpersonality.html >
Posted by MADDOG on Sep. 12 2014,8:57 am
< Cato Raid Map >
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 08 2015,8:36 am
More warm and fuzzy protection. Well, at least fuzzy.< View on YouTube >
coming to a classroom near you.
< View on YouTube >
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 08 2015,11:29 am
I don't know what a good alternative would be for urban training. Personally I don't see the need for it. Paranoia or wasteful spending by our government I guess. The unannounced military helicopter training in populated cites like St. Paul/Minneapolis are the ones that freak me out the most. They can claim they don't want to announce the land training because they don't want gawkers interfering. Ok, fine, but I don't see how announcing the helicopter drills in cities would cause any problems. Those drills also scare the crap outta people! Not to mention the danger? If one of those helicopters crashed in downtown any populated city?
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 08 2015,12:26 pm
Better head for your bunker we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.
Posted by stardust14 on Jun. 08 2015,11:38 pm
Sad that many yet view protestors negatively. The Silent Majority lives on in cyber world. Small-town america sees no need for protestors. Its subtle use of aparteid policies seem to be working well.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 08 2015,11:58 pm
They see them negatively because there only seem to be a couple groups that protest. The kooky left are a bunch of unemployed broke ass losers that occupy parks and crap in bags, and live under tarps. The racist right wing kooks protest ocassionally because they want their country back, the one where white folks ran things and you didn't let no black man live in the Whitehouse unless they're serving the white folks dinner. The inner city folk rarely protest, they just riot and loot.So just out of curiosity why aren't you protesting or organizing a protest if things are so terrible?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,4:50 am
(Liberal @ Jun. 08 2015,11:58 pm)
QUOTE
So just out of curiosity why aren't you protesting or organizing a protest if things are so terrible?
The first step in protesting is discussing the problems and airing grievances with others. Stardust does that quite well.
Posted by grassman on Jun. 09 2015,5:56 am
(Liberal @ Jun. 08 2015,11:58 pm)
QUOTE
So just out of curiosity why aren't you protesting or organizing a protest if things are so terrible?
Well the way things turn out lately, maybe Stardust is allergic to pepper spray and rubber bullets.
Posted by grassman on Jun. 09 2015,6:06 am
(stardust14 @ Jun. 08 2015,11:38 pm)
QUOTE
Sad that many yet view protestors negatively. The Silent Majority lives on in cyber world. Small-town america sees no need for protestors. Its subtle use of aparteid policies seem to be working well.
hmmm.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,8:48 am
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Jun. 09 2015,4:50 am)
QUOTE
(Liberal @ Jun. 08 2015,11:58 pm)
QUOTE
So just out of curiosity why aren't you protesting or organizing a protest if things are so terrible?
The first step in protesting is discussing the problems and airing grievances with others. Stardust does that quite well.
All hat and no cattle, just like you. Shouldn't you be in your bunker in case military helicopters fly over again?
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 09 2015,9:01 am
(Liberal @ Jun. 09 2015,8:48 am)
QUOTE
All hat and no cattle, just like you.
That reminds me a the type of person who would run for political office, then refuse to show up for the debates.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,9:13 am
lib:QUOTE
Shouldn't you be in your bunker in case military helicopters fly over again?
Must be having reading comprehension problems still, or perhaps you just can't muster anything other than lame insults at all anymore.
QUOTE
That reminds me a the type of person who would run for political office, then refuse to show up for the debates.
OMGosh! Holy Moly!
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,9:55 am
(MADDOG @ Jun. 09 2015,9:01 am)
QUOTE
(Liberal @ Jun. 09 2015,8:48 am)
QUOTE
All hat and no cattle, just like you.
That reminds me a the type of person who would run for political office, then refuse to show up for the debates.
Yeah, I'm not the type of person that kisses the chamber's ass so I would never attend one of their meetings. You probably missed that topic when you were in the hospital on our dime.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,10:02 am
QUOTE
The unannounced military helicopter training in populated cites like St. Paul/Minneapolis are the ones that freak me out the most.
Like I said, head for your bunker we'll let you know when the scarey helicopters go away.
Posted by MADDOG on Jun. 09 2015,10:59 am
Sorry Bob. My bill was covered.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,11:15 am
I like how you left out the part of my comment after that sentence you quoted. The part that said those unannounced helicopter drills scare the crap outta people...they do. And the part where I questioned the safety of those drills in downtown areas of major cities. But then...it's you. I don't think there's one single person on this forum who actually takes anything you say seriously anymore. So lib, when you would bring up how we were lied into Iraq and you brought up estimates of how many innocent Iraqi's had been killed, or when you brought up how our media is corrupted, or when you brought up how our civil liberties are being eroded/destroyed... that was just for fun? You just wanted to argue? You didn't actually think those things were important enough to try to convince people to get off their asses and try to do something about where this country is heading?
Why weren't you out protesting?
Just like to sport bitch?
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,11:18 am
Yeah, covered by us because you had no insurance.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,11:39 am
So if I believe we were lied to about Iraq then I can't call you a nut for believing every conspiracy theory that ever existed? And when they don't exist you make crap up, like your Mn running lights conspiracy theory? You should head for your bunker Jade Helm 15 will be starting soon, we'll let you know when the scarey military exercises are over, and it's safe to come out of your hole.
QUOTE
I don't think there's one single person on this forum who actually takes anything you say seriously anymore.
You are seriously the laughingstock of the forum. When you post I get calls asking why I allow you to post crazy conspiracy theories. I usually pount out that nobody responds to your posts so I figure most people just think you're mentally ill and not worth responding to.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,11:57 am
QUOTE
Why weren't you out protesting?
Just like to sport bitch?
I was busy getting things done. Like suing the County over Rule 19, recording City Council and County commissioner meetings and broadcasting them on tv, and running a rather large forum. And during all that I dealt with multiple medical problems and raised two daughters. What have you ever done that helped anyone but yourself?
Obviously me saying that you just sport bitch must have stung, but saying it back to me is a bit like saying, "I know you are, but what am I"
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,12:45 pm
I've already said a few times that the daytime running lights thing was a joke, I was bored, and to be honest I wanted to see your personal reaction. I was a bit disappointed, I expected more of a freak-out from you on that. So back a few years ago you were against the Iraq war and how we got into it, but recently you excuse the killing of innocents with (I don't remember the exact words) "How else do you get a dictator to play nice with others?" And apparently you no longer have a problem with the erosion of our civil liberties, or with the corruption with media.
So only people who have enough time on their hands should protest? And this forum is only for discussion (of things you approve of) and it's only a place for arguing that serves absolutely no purpose.
I'm busy, I'm sure Stardust is busy, I'm sure most people in this forum are busy.I'm sure most people in this forum have health problems and families. But for some reason, you are the only person who can bitch about huge problems. Anyone else should be out on the street holding a sign and getting ridiculed like the Hinnenkamp's did. But then, when people do go out and protest, like Occupy, you say there's nothing to complain about, this is the greatest country on
Earth, and the people out protesting should just shut up and get jobs.
Sooo.... ??
You saying that I sport bitch did not sting in the least. Nothing you say about me personally bothers me at all.
You and I talked in private way back when I first started here, and I said I was impressed with how well you handled it when one of the forum members brought your daughter up in a post, and I told you I would probably be furious if anyone ever brought my kids up as a way to bash me. The first time you brought my kids up, you lost any possible credibility with me whatsoever.
You don't even try to discuss anything with anybody anymore. Just name calling, insults and ridicule of anyone who disagrees with you.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,1:48 pm
I didn't bring up your kids you halfwit. I said you were a worthless parent and I don't care how rough life gets you don't hand your kids over to the county because parenting is just too hard. Then you have the nerve to act like a victim when they don't just hand the kids back to you when you changed your mind.I'm no fan of the DHS but there is no doubt in my mind that they were right to look into your ability to parent properly when you just surrendered your children to them and told them that you couldn't handle parenting. How did they know you weren't going to get overwhelmed by parenting and do something terrible to those kids next time? Why would I say something about your kids, they were the victims in this, and you put them in that position.
One of your best quotes, it pretty much sums up how people feel about your crazy conspiracy theories.
QUOTE
Just curious. Honest, I don't have cooties. PLEASE TALK TO ME!
Here's your post about DRLs, what part was the joke?
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 27 2013,9:31 pm)
QUOTE
I agree. Completely stupid legislation. Sounds so stupid and fishy I went snooping. All this might be just coincidence. Crazy coincidences happen quite often in the government and corporate world.
This representative is from Mankato. So is the CEO of GM.
< http://mankatofreepress.com/local...Mankato >
GM has been pushing for mandatory DRL's for a long time.
< http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-03-19/html/04-6208.htm >
Because of the TARP bailout there is a cap on executive compensation at GM. Right now there's a dispute over the CEO's pay.
< http://www.usatoday.com/story...1948305 >
Akerson personally asked Geithner to remove the restrictions last year, but he denied the request.
It certainly would give GM a boost if DRL's are mandatory.
This representative is from Mankato. So is the CEO of GM.
< http://mankatofreepress.com/local...Mankato >
GM has been pushing for mandatory DRL's for a long time.
QUOTE
In late 2001, General Motors (GM) submitted a petition for rulemaking
that asked NHTSA to mandate DRLs on new vehicles.
that asked NHTSA to mandate DRLs on new vehicles.
< http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-03-19/html/04-6208.htm >
Because of the TARP bailout there is a cap on executive compensation at GM. Right now there's a dispute over the CEO's pay.
< http://www.usatoday.com/story...1948305 >
Akerson personally asked Geithner to remove the restrictions last year, but he denied the request.
It certainly would give GM a boost if DRL's are mandatory.
As far as Iraq sanctions, sanctions are supposed to hurt, but not as much as an mk84 jdam does. What is the point of sanctions if they don't hurt?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,2:11 pm
QUOTE
I didn't bring up your kids you halfwit. I said you were a worthless parent and I don't care how rough life gets you don't hand your kids over to the county because parenting is just too hard. Then you have the nerve to act like a victim when they don't just hand the kids back to you when you changed your mind.
You really should get help with the reading comprehension problems. Not sure how you got that I "handed over my kids to the county". The article I wrote to the paper clearly states that I went to DHS to get my children counseling and help with anger/behavioral problems. I never gave them my kids, they took the oldest two from me, and placed them in foster homes and kiddie jails instead of trying to help them. They just moved them to different homes every time the foster families couldn't handle them. I was a danger to the teenagers but safe for the 3 and 4 year old to be around? Get some help with reading comprehension.
And you didn't bring up my kids? Serioiusly?
Topic: This is not climate change:
QUOTE
Scare your kids? I heard one was so worried about going back to live with you that they jumped out of a moving car. How much more scared could someone be?
You are a sick and pathetic person.
You honestly think I care about Daytime Running Lights??? Like I said, I was bored, it was a joke, I was messing around. Believe what you want. But I don't give a crap about DRL's.
Still no comment on the erosion of our civil liberties? Or corruption of the media? Of course not. You'll just insult and lie some more instead.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,2:57 pm
QUOTE
Scare your kids? I heard one was so worried about going back to live with you that they jumped out of a moving car. How much more scared could someone be?
In your mind I'm insulting your child by saying you scare them with your conspiracy theories? I didnt pass any judgement on the kid, in fact I don't blame the kid for jumping if they were going back to you.
And who cares what your self serving letter to the editor said, most normal parents wouldn't leave their kids at DHS no matter what. Do you really expect people to believe you took them all there to get them counseling together instead of calling and setting up appointments? And DHS just took your kids against your will instead of helping them? You've been telling that lie for so long that you're starting to believe it yourself.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,6:43 pm
QUOTE
Do you really expect people to believe you took them all there to get them counseling together instead of calling and setting up appointments?
Reading comprehension problems again.
From the article:
I tried three different counselors, but things kept getting worse. Against everyone’s advice I went to the Child Protection Services unit of Freeborn County, seeking help in finding better counseling and anger management for my children. I thought it was my best chance at getting my children the help they needed.
QUOTE
And DHS just took your kids against your will instead of helping them?
From the article:
. After a year of asking for counseling and receiving none and being even more worried for my children’s futures and now even the safety of my youngest two, I agreed to putting my teens in foster care, hoping then they would get the help they needed.
I found out later that I had been tricked out of custody and had no say in their lives.
QUOTE
You've been telling that lie for so long that you're starting to believe it yourself.
I'm not the one lying here, you are. And I have plenty of proof to back me up.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,8:18 pm
QUOTE
I never gave them my kids, they took the oldest two from me, and placed them in foster homes and kiddie jails instead of trying to help them.
QUOTE
I agreed to putting my teens in foster care, hoping then they would get the help they needed.
You seem to get your lies mixed up.
Posted by Botto 82 on Jun. 09 2015,8:20 pm
Wow, more ad hominem crap from Chad. Didn't see that coming... 
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,8:32 pm
I prefer to ridicule you nutty conspiracy theorists instead of banning you. If you'd like I could just ban you conspiracy kooks instead like other forums do.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,9:28 pm
(Liberal @ Jun. 09 2015,8:18 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I never gave them my kids, they took the oldest two from me, and placed them in foster homes and kiddie jails instead of trying to help them.
QUOTE
I agreed to putting my teens in foster care, hoping then they would get the help they needed.
You seem to get your lies mixed up.
Nope, but the tribune only allows 500 words for letters. Even condensing it as much as possible I still went over their limit, but because I had to condense it so much, I couldn't explain much of anything adequately.
Yes, I agreed to put them into TEMPORARY foster care. It was the idea of the workers. I figured they would for sure get them some counseling or help of some kind if they were in a foster home setting. I don't think it even lasted a month at the first placement for my oldest daughter. The family couldn't handle her anymore. I had been gone for the day with my younger two and came home to find that the family had dumped my daughter and all of her belongings outside my door and left. They hadn't notified me, hadn't talked to anyone at DHS, just dumped her and her belongings at my locked door, where she sat for a couple of hours before I got home.
We tried it for a few months again, and things were still horrible, DHS still ignored my requests for them to find her counseling or anger management. The last time I talked to them begging them to get her help, they again offered TEMPORARY foster placement. I agreed again, because by that time I was also worried about the safety of my youngest two because of my oldest's behavior.
While she was in the next placement, THAT is when they TOOK the oldest two from me. Some of the things in the file I got from them are emails between Erin O'Brien and the social worker discussing TAKING them from me. (Pretty sure Erin and the social workers were not pleased when they realized some of the documents and information they included with my file.)
When the placement with my son didn't work out they sent him to a kiddie jail. After that didn't work out because of some sexual impropriety between a couple of the boys and one of the kiddie jail workers, and after my son and a couple of other boys ran away, they moved him to another kiddie jail.
Like I've said already a few times, I have proof, and all you have is a bunch of libel.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 09 2015,9:38 pm
Lies, twists, and...flip-flopping!2005
Topic:
FU.N. Oil-for-food-scandal
liberal:
QUOTE
Or could it be that I didn't agree with the UN sanctions in the first place. It's not like history hasn't taught us that sanctions have never worked. How many years have we had sanctions against Cuba?
2006
Topic:
Jill Carroll
In response to comments on Rumsfeld and Saddam:
liberal
QUOTE
Which one of those two warmongers do you think is responsible for more Muslim/American deaths?
What a perfect comment from jimhanson in his last post from that topic:
jimhanson:
QUOTE
Liberal denial "pay no attention to what I said in the past, THIS is what I mean TODAY!"
Oh, by the way, where is jim? Doesn't he feel like playing with any forum members private profiles or changing anyone's posts anymore?
2013
Topic:
Ammo
In response to comment on sanctions killing so many innocent Iraqi's. Specifically from destruction of water/sewer and declassified documents showing discussion within military/government knowing beforehand how devastating it would be to the civilians:
liberal
QUOTE
Do you have a better way to get a rogue regime to play well with others?
This topic:
QUOTE
As far as Iraq sanctions, sanctions are supposed to hurt, but not as much as an mk84 jdam does. What is the point of sanctions if they don't hurt?
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,10:10 pm
QUOTE
Like I've said already a few times, I have proof, and all you have is a bunch of libel.
Libel? I don't think that means what you think it does.
So you willingly gave up your kids like I said, but you try to justify it by saying it was "TEMPORARY" foster care? And you couldn't add the word TEMPORARY to the letter because of the 500 word limit? Do you really think you didn't give your kids to DHS because it was only "TEMPORARY"?
And you accuse me of lying and twisting words?
Maybe you wouldn't have had all those problems if you'd have spent more time parenting and less time reading the conspiracy theory websites.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 09 2015,10:21 pm
Not sure what you're getting at but nothing you quoted from those old posts has changed. Sanctions don't work, sanctions harms the citizenry but not as much as bombs, and Rumsfeld is a warmonger that is most likely responsible for more deaths than Saddam.QUOTE
Oh, by the way, where is jim? Doesn't he feel like playing with any forum members private profiles or changing anyone's posts anymore?
holy crap you're so mentally ill you should be in a institution. Nobody changed anything on your posts or your profile. Nobody has access to your profile and why would anyone care enough about what you post to change it. Also there's a log file of changes made by moderators and nobody has touched a single letter of any post you've made.
I'm 100% serious, you need professional help. jimhanson never edited a post. He's computer illiterate and has never even accessed the control panel. I was making fun of you saying jimhanson was allowed to change posts, I figured it would put you in a high speed wobble and at the same time the moderators would get a kick out of me saying jihanson edited a post because they all know that he's never edited anyone's posts,
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jun. 10 2015,8:53 am
QUOTE
Or could it be that I didn't agree with the UN sanctions in the
first place. It's not like history hasn't taught us that sanctions
have never worked. How many years have we had sanctions against
Cuba?
first place. It's not like history hasn't taught us that sanctions
have never worked. How many years have we had sanctions against
Cuba?
QUOTE
Do you have a better way to get a rogue regime to play well with others?
QUOTE
What is the point of sanctions if they don't hurt?
QUOTE
What is the point of sanctions if
QUOTE
sanctions have never worked?
Oh but that's right. You don't like change, you think America is
just fine and should just keep doing things the way they always
have, regardless of the outcome.
As for your denying that jim ever changed a post, I brought the First Amendment Rights topic back to the top of this section. Comment #50 had been something I wrote, but somehow was "miraculously" changed into something jim most definitely did write.
Posted by Liberal on Jun. 10 2015,11:23 am
Do you think anything in those out of context partial quotes is contradictory?< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/202/Mental-Health-Center >