no, actually i dont give a rats ass about obama. i voted for 'your' guy both times.
so keep up the ignorance.
do us a favor and find yourself a better country
Watertown may be setting a dangerous precedent
- Thread starter *TK*
- Start date
no, actually i dont give a rats ass about obama. i voted for 'your' guy both times.
so keep up the ignorance.
do us a favor and find yourself a better country
Ron Paul on Boston: Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston by Ron Paul
lol. that was a great article. i especially like how all 6 sentences in the first paragraph are not only untrue, but complete exaggerations and blatant departures from reality. great way to get the sheep going right off the bat.
funny that all this is coming from gulf coasters, all i seem to remember from katrina was the bitching and whining about how the government didn't get there quick enough. :burn:
Great article thanks for sharing. This article by Ron Paul sums up everything that I've been talking about through this thread.
Liberty was also Attacked in Boston, by Ron Paul.
"Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.
These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.
What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.
The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.
No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.
As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:
“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”
Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.
Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.
This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us."
"Forced lockdown of a city. Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. Businesses forced to close. Transport shut down.
These were not the scenes from a military coup in a far off banana republic, but rather the scenes just over a week ago in Boston as the United States got a taste of martial law. The ostensible reason for the military-style takeover of parts of Boston was that the accused perpetrator of a horrific crime was on the loose. The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city. This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.
What has been sadly forgotten in all the celebration of the capture of one suspect and the killing of his older brother is that the police state tactics in Boston did absolutely nothing to catch them. While the media crowed that the apprehension of the suspects was a triumph of the new surveillance state – and, predictably, many talking heads and Members of Congress called for even more government cameras pointed at the rest of us – the fact is none of this caught the suspect. Actually, it very nearly gave the suspect a chance to make a getaway.
The “shelter in place” command imposed by the governor of Massachusetts was lifted before the suspect was caught. Only after this police state move was ended did the owner of the boat go outside to check on his property, and in so doing discover the suspect.
No, the suspect was not discovered by the paramilitary troops terrorizing the public. He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police. And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.
As journalist Tim Carney wrote last week:
“Law enforcement in Boston used cameras to ID the bombing suspects, but not police cameras. Instead, authorities asked the public to submit all photos and videos of the finish-line area to the FBI, just in case any of them had relevant images. The surveillance videos the FBI posted online of the suspects came from private businesses that use surveillance to punish and deter crime on their property.”
Sadly, we have been conditioned to believe that the job of the government is to keep us safe, but in reality the job of the government is to protect our liberties. Once the government decides that its role is to keep us safe, whether economically or physically, they can only do so by taking away our liberties. That is what happened in Boston.
Three people were killed in Boston and that is tragic. But what of the fact that over 40 persons are killed in the United States each day, and sometimes ten persons can be killed in one city on any given weekend? These cities are not locked-down by paramilitary police riding in tanks and pointing automatic weapons at innocent citizens.
This is unprecedented and is very dangerous. We must educate ourselves and others about our precious civil liberties to ensure that we never accept demands that we give up our Constitution so that the government can pretend to protect us."
It's nice to see all the MA libtards in here who would gladly give up their liberty for security. I can't wait to leave all you nanny state lovers some day, and live in a state where Big Sis doesn't want to hold my hand and tell me what to do in every aspect of my life.
Enjoy your false sense of "security". Bahh, bahh, quick the flock is running that way.
Enjoy your false sense of "security". Bahh, bahh, quick the flock is running that way.
so you're ignoring the fact that everything he based that article on is untrue? and you guys call other people sheep? :read: LOLOLOLOL
It's nice to see all the MA libtards in here who would gladly give up their liberty for security. I can't wait to leave all you nanny state lovers some day, and live in a state where Big Sis doesn't want to hold my hand and tell me what to do in every aspect of my life.
Enjoy your false sense of "security". Bahh, bahh, quick the flock is running that way.
lol. running to a new state because you follow their thinking and disagree with this one. the irony of the sheep. i don't agree with 75% of this state's politics, but i don't run away.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
- Messages
- 2,908
Can this be moved to smackdown already?
The polictical bickering thread pushes my gun porn/hottest woman/NWS lol pics to page 2.
The polictical bickering thread pushes my gun porn/hottest woman/NWS lol pics to page 2.
So then you're just too stubborn to move. I'm not going to fight with the idiots who want a nanny state because they can't fight off geese in their own backyard (that's you Cambridge). Or because they think "assault rifles" are icky and scary. Or because they feel "bad" for the people who have 3 different addressed that receive welfare, yet they're driving brand new Mercedes.
If you wanna stay, good on you. Enjoy your eye throbbing headaches when those same idiots vote for more taxes, welfare, gun control, people control, etc.
New Hampshire is a 2 hour move away for me; live free or die. If that doesn't work out, then there's always Texas, or the Carolinas.
Forced lockdown of a city. - FACT - Boston is on LOCKDOWN as the ENTIRE city told to stay indoors during manhunt for the second bombing suspect | Mail Online
Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. - FACT:
Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. - FACT - Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts - YouTube
Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. - FACT - Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts - YouTube
Businesses forced to close. - FACT - Boston is on LOCKDOWN as the ENTIRE city told to stay indoors during manhunt for the second bombing suspect | Mail Online
Transport shut down. - FACT - Boston is on LOCKDOWN as the ENTIRE city told to stay indoors during manhunt for the second bombing suspect | Mail Online
Forced lockdown of a city. - FACT - Boston is on LOCKDOWN as the ENTIRE city told to stay indoors during manhunt for the second bombing suspect | Mail Online ASKED to stay in doors. i was in Boston that day to go to Logan. no one bothered me
Militarized police riding tanks in the streets. - FACT:
SWAT is now military? AND we're referring to THAT as a tank? an armored econoline? LOLOL
Door-to-door armed searches without warrant. - FACT - Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts - YouTube Discussed earlier, not going into this, no warrant needed
Families thrown out of their homes at gunpoint to be searched without probable cause. - FACT - Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts - YouTube No one 'thrown' out of their homes, exaggeration doesn't equal fact, unless of course you're a sheep to ron
Businesses forced to close. - FACT - Boston is on LOCKDOWN as the ENTIRE city told to stay indoors during manhunt for the second bombing suspect | Mail Online ASKED. plenty of Dunkin Donuts were open (lol to that though), my gf's work was open as well, however they weren't forced in.
Transport shut down. - FACT - Boston is on LOCKDOWN as the ENTIRE city told to stay indoors during manhunt for the second bombing suspect | Mail Online and? to keep the TERRORIST from leaving the area? find me the problem with that.
dammnit, dem darn real facts dun messed up dat argimant age-an. but ron paul, he dun kno his she-at. I dun follow wut ever he said cuz i aint no dang sheep. but ya'll dat think logically, ya'll the sheep. :lol1:
yeah they "asked", while carrying their full auto rifles, I'm sure people had real choices here.
Militarized POLICE, yes = SWAT. And Yes I think most reasonable people would see the similarities b/t tanks and the armored vehicles used in Boston, but I don't mind saying this FACT, should be re-worded.
If you cared for actual facts, then watch the video where people were LITERALLY thrown out of their homes and NOT allowed back.
well that's all good and all, but nowhere did the article claim ALL businesses were closed.
at least you admit this actually happened
the back peddling is amusing
this:
this ones my favorite:
oke:
then this general statement:
then this:
then the best one, we still don't know how this helps your argument:
again, don't believe everything ron tells you. actually do some research. most of you have no idea what you're talking about, and are going off of bits and pieces of what some nut job paranoids are saying.
it is however amusing that you're trying to tell the people that were actually living through this what actually happened
think on your own. stop being the sheep. :read:
this:
they actually didn't, so it goes to this:
you admit to the facts, then dismiss them. gee, i remember seeing those evil guns when i was in the city, i don't recall them forcing me to do anything...oh, wait, they did force me to take a detour because of a closed road (damn those liberal bastards!!)
this ones my favorite:
goes to similarities, but not actually tanks, but they could be confused as such, because well, it fits your agenda. kinda like how all black guns are ar15's? AMIRITE?:
more irresponsible exaggerating. kinda like how all black guns are evil ar15's? AMIRITE? i don't recall this whining when you were all crying for the gov't to intervene during katrina
oke:then this general statement:
now we're narrowing it down because of one video you dont agree with, nevermind that they weren't 'thrown', weren't held, and were allowed in as soon as the home was cleared:
b-but, you saw a video!
then this:
i prove thats not the case, then comes more back peddling:
'well, i didn't claim all!' and you're still forgetting that they were asked. except of course the Arsenal Mall (ironic name yes? CONSPIRACY!) which was an active crime scene.
then the best one, we still don't know how this helps your argument:
i'm assuming that by this:
you're agreeing that limiting the terrorist's means of escape is a good thing yes? unless you wanted him to escape? did you?at least you admit this actually happened
again, don't believe everything ron tells you. actually do some research. most of you have no idea what you're talking about, and are going off of bits and pieces of what some nut job paranoids are saying.
it is however amusing that you're trying to tell the people that were actually living through this what actually happened
think on your own. stop being the sheep. :read:
Bull shit, your every post oozes liberalism. My guy lmao you wouldn't know my guy until he backhanded you across your mouth. Romney nor bush are my guys.
oh, you're back. nope sorry, haven't voted obama either time. and in 3 years when hilary is the nominated Dem, i won't go for her either (not like your boy jeb is getting in however, no way will America vote another bush in after the last one). however, he is MY president, and as such deserves my respect. unfortunately, people like you, who hate america, don't agree. i'd be careful, you might be on some kind of watch list.
unfortunately for you, your 'boy' will never get in. you want a 100% right wing nutjob good'ol boy. just like how the far left crazies want their 100% lib. it's not realistic, and the sooner you realize that the more enjoyable your existence will be. but there's always mexico!
Last edited:
I thought you were only a liberal sheep, but I guess I need to add blind to that as well.
Lol. Can't refute anything I say? Not surprising.DarkMach1 said:lol. that was a great article. i especially like how all 6 sentences in the first paragraph are not only untrue, but complete exaggerations and blatant departures from reality. great way to get the sheep going right off the bat.
funny that all this is coming from gulf coasters, all i seem to remember from katrina was the bitching and whining about how the government didn't get there quick enough.
I thought you were only a liberal sheep, but I guess I need to add blind to that as well.
I think people have a misunderstanding of The 4th Amendment. I'm not a lawyer by any means and I'm surprised one hasn't commented on this (I'm sure we have a few members who are lawyers) I haven't read all the facts. I'm just commenting on the first post regrading Search without a warrant. The search of a home touches on the 4th Amendment. Police don't always need a warrant or consent. A search conducted without a written warrant is "per se" unreasonable within the meaning of the 4th Amendment unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the written warrant requirement. there are 7 if anybody cares to look them up but the one which fits in this case would be "probable cause based searches conducted in face of exigent circumstances." And probable cause means the police need something more than Reasonable Suspicion but less than Preponderance it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt ppl. And besides the police weren't searching the homes in order to find evidence of criminal wrong doing to use against the homeowner or anybody in the home. They were searching for a known terrorist who had probably gone into one of the homes. I'm sorry but think of how stupid it would sound if the police had to wait outside of every home and wait until a search warrant was issue- of course I'm only talking about this situation where a known arm and dangerous terrorist is loose. " The Constitution does not prohibit all warrant less searches it only forbids Unreasonable searches" Read your Case Law ppl inform yourselfs before you go making judgements.
Users who are viewing this thread
