Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on September 26, 2007, 02:47:40 PM
-
hmmm.................
so we gotta wait till..................
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/09/25/if-congressional-approval-falls-below-10-do-we-get-to-have-another-revolution/
10% or less?
hmmm.......................
they took a poll???????????????????
so Congress needs to be polled??? AFTER their tarred and feathered?:D
AHHHH OK bad joke
-
You need Flash Issues to start the revolution. If something like WACO were to happen again, it'd be easy to start.
As much as we hate the politicians, nothing will happen until we are personally threatened. And I am not in a position where I want to start it myself based entirely off of a low approval rating.
-
I am very leery as to just why the author thinks it's necessary to write a NEW constitution just because the popularity of the elected officials is low. Replacing the politicians I can agree with, trashing the constitution is out of the question.
"The latest Zogby poll shows that only 11 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. This is contrasted with Bush's underwhelming 29% approval rating. These polls show that Americans of all political stripes are losing faith in their government. Congress' all time low (prior to this poll) is 18% approval. Do we get to disband the government and write a new Constitution if it falls below 10%? For comparison, most foreign governments suffer a coup at these approval ratings."
-
Folks in Waco died because of themselves. They failed to come out when asked. I thought the officials let it go on way too long.
-
Shuffler there's plenty of examples from Ruby Ridge to the BATF archives of how our govt is failing us.
I agree with the second commenter on the article. Don't rewrite the constitution, it's not broken. If it were re-written you could garuntee the 2nd amendment would go bye bye.
-
Welp dang.........
I don't care for or trust polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted it more for amusement then serious.
IMHO little or even NOTHING will be done about are politicians. Which is VERY saddening.
I add in that IMHO NEITHER the reps nor them dems are worthy of anyones votes.
I've come to hold the opinion that these 2 parties are actually 2 sides of the same coin.
Watched em.......... one says we need this the other says NO! Then soon after the party yelling no votes in the thing the other party originally wanted. SOOO whats the difference in these parties?
IMHO the difference is ONLY MEDIA HYPE!
You want to keep your rights? You want to keep your freedom? You want to keep your liberty?
Maybe you should look at some other party? CAREFULLY!
I've looked at em and I have to say the party that comes closest to what I want is the libertarians.
The constitutional party was interesting but then it went too far right for me............
If you are not free I am not free................
I can not secure my rights by taking your rights away, nor can you secure your rights by taking mine.
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Folks in Waco died because of themselves. They failed to come out when asked. I thought the officials let it go on way too long.
Yea...what`s burning a few babies here and there ?
It was more more dramatic than picking the one up they wanted at the lumber yard where he went on the same day every week at aprx. the same time.
-
A relevant portion of the Declaration of Independence -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. "
-
Apparently, from the facts since revealed, those in charge of the initial ATF assault on Waco were intent on getting some media attention and went in like a bunch of cowboys, and got some good men killed.
Not to defend the whackos within the compound, but in the aftermath of that fiasco the authorities overreacted and took the worst possible course of action; surrounding a sect that believed in an apocalyptic view of their government with vast numbers of men, loudspeakers, searchlights, and military materiel.
Nuclear powered stupidity, and the use of military vehicles in the final assault was a violation of federal law, which prohibits their use against civilians.
Stupid. Koresch was stupid, and the Feds were stupid. A lot of innocent women and children paid the price.
-
Viva La Revolution
(http://www.welched.com/temp/george-bush.jpg)
-
there will be no revolution, if anything there will a military coup.
-
Originally posted by john9001
there will be no revolution, if anything there will a military coup.
And your basis for this statement is?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Apparently, from the facts since revealed, those in charge of the initial ATF assault on Waco were intent on getting some media attention and went in like a bunch of cowboys, and got some good men killed.
Not to defend the whackos within the compound, but in the aftermath of that fiasco the authorities overreacted and took the worst possible course of action; surrounding a sect that believed in an apocalyptic view of their government with vast numbers of men, loudspeakers, searchlights, and military materiel.
Nuclear powered stupidity, and the use of military vehicles in the final assault was a violation of federal law, which prohibits their use against civilians.
Stupid. Koresch was stupid, and the Feds were stupid. A lot of innocent women and children paid the price.
Overreacted is an understatement. Blatant disregard for law, fabrication of false evidence, mass murder... These are only a couple of the things that the ATF did.
When the revolution comes, the ATF will be the first up against the wall.
-
It is true that the approval rating of congress is quite low right now. When the political pendulum swings too far in one direction we have a mechanism to fix it. It's called an ELECTION.
We don't need a revolution.
We don't need to change our constitution. It has served us well and continues to do so.
We do need to change our politicians.
To quote Robin Williams in Man of the Year: "politicians are like diapers...they should be changed frequently, and for the same reason."
Joker
-
Originally posted by john9001
there will be no revolution, if anything there will a military coup.
John as a member of the military (12 years of service) I can tell you this. The US Military will NEVER form a coup. It's not designed to follow a leader that isn't endorsed by the congress.
One thing is for sure. Every member of the military is sworn to "uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". That is we do not swear any type of alegence to the federal govt. itself except to "obey the orders of the commander in chief and the officers appointed over me". With that said it is hard pressed that we will follow a general that will lead us to a coup.
Without the order that we have now discipline in the US armed forces will be hard to maintain at best. Do lead a coup you'd have to have some hard core officers leading some well respected NCOs on a mission that they've never ever been trained to do.
IMHO it would be hard pressed to carry out with the current chain of command.
I am a Non-Commissioned Officer and I would have a hard time ordering members that I am in charge of to lead a coup against my government. The same goverment wich was elected by the people in accordance with the constitution that I swore to uphold and defend.
-
Originally posted by Joker
When the political pendulum swings too far in one direction we have a mechanism to fix it. It's called an ELECTION.
We don't need a revolution.
Joker
The problem with this is, pretty much all politicians now days suck. Very few of them actually give a rats bellybutton about "we the people". All most of them are worried about is catering to special interest and big business so they can further their careers.
IMO every political office should hold term limits that allow at most 6 to 8 years in that position. Career politics is what has ruined this once great nation.
I do agree that our Constitution, is just fine. We just need a govt, that actually gives a rats bellybutton about it.
-
Originally posted by crockett
The problem with this is, pretty much all politicians now days suck. Very few of them actually give a rats bellybutton about "we the people". All most of them are worried about is catering to special interest and big business so they can further their careers.
IMO every political office should hold term limits that allow at most 6 to 8 years in that position. Career politics is what has ruined this once great nation.
I do agree that our Constitution, is just fine. We just need a govt, that actually gives a rats bellybutton about it.
Nothing has been as damaging to this nation as the 16th Amendment has. Politicians without term limits is a mere sneeze compared to the damage the 16th has done.
-
Originally posted by crockett
The problem with this is, pretty much all politicians now days suck. Very few of them actually give a rats bellybutton about "we the people". All most of them are worried about is catering to special interest and big business so they can further their careers.
IMO every political office should hold term limits that allow at most 6 to 8 years in that position. Career politics is what has ruined this once great nation.
Yup, I agree with you, and I certainly support term limits. That would be a giant step in the right direction.
Once enough of us get fed up with the current crop, they will be voted out.
Joker
-
Alot of people have said that nothing's wrong with the constitution. However, It's completely useless if it's not abided by. Also, It needs some things added to it- I, for one, would like to see an end to any form of monetary endorsements' outside of a serving member of Gov'ts pay. That is to say, make it illegal to accept money from any 'lobbyist', or any concern that can use cash to 'buy' votes, that make an elected representative vote contrary to the wishes of his/her constituency.
As it is now, one multinational corporation has more say in the U.S. Gov't. than any 10 million voters, simply because they have the money and resources to simply 'buy' the congressman they want or need. To put an end to this, we will probably need something like another Constitutional convention...whether at the end of an armed uprising, or...whatever might choose to transpire.
One more thing, though. When you take the U.S. and split it up demographically, racially, religously, etc. You find that any kind of armed insurrection, once it spreads, would simply turn to chaos. We have too many different groups of people in this country that all want something different. Instead of one populace rising to put right it's affairs, you would have races fighting each other, the poor simply trying to ransack what they could, people simply being oppurtunistic of the fighting to try to pull off what petty crimes they could, rather than actually take part and fix the situation we have now, etc.
To see what I base this statement on, you simply need to take a look at how many people have been turning out for elections, to see how many actually care about the politics of this country. The last 4-5 national elections have had the worst turnouts in american history.
The poll shows that the average American and the average politician are simply disconnected. The concerns of the average American aren't represented inside the Beltway and it shows that what's huge news on the cable news channels and in the latest partisan shouting matches isn't what matters most to Americans. And America is fed up.
The thing you gotta catch in that article is, that they are talking about the average American. But the golden question there is, what is the average american???
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
They failed to come out when asked.
So they were killed!?
:confused:
-
I think everyone is missing the point.. we get the government we want.
Have you ever seen spoiled children... really rotten spoiled.. who were happy? who loved and respected their parents?
The fact is.. the congress is giving us exactly what we we say we want... lots of free stuff paid for by everyone else. they work hard and long hours doing everything in their power to make sure that some group or another gets lots and lots of free stuff that is paid for by someone else.
Every year... we cry even louder because the government isn't giving us enough free stuff... isn't making sure that all trajedy.. all natural disaster... all hardship... is taken care of by some branch of government who will pay for it with someone elses money.
We think it is our "right" to be fed and housed and given medical care and tucked in at night.
If someone gets killed or injured... it is something the government needs to do something about. Matters not that he was doing something stupid... we need to wear lifejackets in the bath tub if enough people drown... we need to be told what to eat and what kind of sex we can have with other consenting adults... what we can watch or read.
We decide on freedom based on how much money it might cost our "government" if we have it... we cant even be trusted to defend ourselves.
No... the reason the approval rating is so low is because we want so much... we are spoiled children who don't even know what America was ever about much less how to get back.
We are worried that if the supreme court decides that the 2nd is indeed an individual right (which it is) that thousands of unconstitutional laws we asked our government to make will be wiped out.
We worry that we will gain freedom!!!!!
My approval rating for blue... and some red... voters is about as low as it is for congress...
lazs
-
Gunslinger, read the declaration of independence.
and, crockett and I finally agree on something, term limits.
:D
-
Originally posted by john9001
Gunslinger, read the declaration of independence.
and, crockett and I finally agree on something, term limits.
:D
I never took an oath to uphold and defend the declaration of indepencence.
-
gunslinger... no one has defended the constitution for a very long time. We... all of us.. have chipped away at it because it is "too hard" to live by.
It doesn't have enough "heart". It doesn't help the people who are "slipping through the cracks through no fault of their own"
The military has not defended our constitution one single time from such an assault.
But they are no more guilty than the people or the government... we all have a part.
term limits and new politicians will be useless... we won't let them cut a single thing... we will never give up our greed for and envy for other peoples property and freedom.
The truth is that as a whole.. it angers us to see someone who has more or who lives more free than us.. it angers us to see an individual. It even angers us to see someone more happy than us... we demand of our politicans that he either make them stop or that he make us just as happy.
Hell... we think nothing of making people wear seatbelts... making grown men buckle up in their own car? I can't imagine what kind of constitution that touted individual rights would allow such a thing.
lazs
-
They beautiful thing about our constitution is that it lends itself to change. In fact, Jefferson himself stated that a revolution should happen every 10 years or so. The best part is that the constitution basically states this....
Here are the rules, if you don't like the rules, then you are free to change the rules with due process.
-
Damn right Lasz.
I mean, if I have a fist full of dollar bills and the stripper wants to sit in my lap, who is the government (federal or local) to tell us no?
-
Originally posted by badhorse
So they were killed!?
:confused:
So would you rather have every crack house raid turn into a 30 day hold out, because something "might" go wrong? I'm not saying the govt did the right thing in Waco, but it was pretty clear they were dealing in illegal firearms and other crimes. That would bring a ATF/FBI raid anywhere. There wasn't anything different in Waco vs any other raid, other than it went bad and more people were involved than a typical raid.
Sure the govt screwed it up and yea they should have taken him out side the house. "However" who knows what would have happened even then. They still would have had to deal with the other people that were still at the compound and they would have still had to raid the compound. At that point any possible element of surprise would have been gone and who knows how the others inside would have reacted to DK being taken captive. Hell they might have built even better defenses and faught back just the same as they did.
I'm pretty sure part of the reason the Govt screwed it up so bad, was the guys in charge probably second guessed themselves because they knew there were women and children inside. I'm sure the fact that they were some whacked out cult that had already threatened to return gunfire, had a little to do with how it played out as well.
-
Originally posted by crockett
So would you rather have every crack house raid turn into a 30 day hold out, because something "might" go wrong? I'm not saying the govt did the right thing in Waco, but it was pretty clear they were dealing in illegal firearms and other crimes. That would bring a ATF/FBI raid anywhere. There wasn't anything different in Waco vs any other raid, other than it went bad and more people were involved than a typical raid.
Sure the govt screwed it up and yea they should have taken him out side the house. "However" who knows what would have happened even then. They still would have had to deal with the other people that were still at the compound and they would have still had to raid the compound. At that point any possible element of surprise would have been gone and who knows how the others inside would have reacted to DK being taken captive. Hell they might have built even better defenses and faught back just the same as they did.
I'm pretty sure part of the reason the Govt screwed it up so bad, was the guys in charge probably second guessed themselves because they knew there were women and children inside. I'm sure the fact that they were some whacked out cult that had already threatened to return gunfire, had a little to do with how it played out as well.
Alot of that makes sense, crockett, but...
It's been said, that the reason the standoff went the way it did, was because not only did the Gov't. want Koresh, but they wanted to make an example of him, and his cult.
The real message from Waco was, The federal government will only tolerate so much, from any group.
They want you to think that this is what will happen to any militia, non-mainstream religous group, or other organization which they deem improper. They believe that fear will enable control.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
I mean, if I have a fist full of dollar bills and the stripper wants to sit in my lap, who is the government (federal or local) to tell us no?
What we want or can get that trips our trigger is a lousy definition of freedom.
I'd chuck the entire discourse, and eliminate all voices except those who are all fired up about what they can give.
Spoiled?
I should say so!
-
Three minutes after the initial call, two Combat Engineering Vehicles approached the buildings, punched holes into the fragile walls, and began to spray teargas through nozzles into the compound, propelled by noncombustible carbon dioxide. Nearby were an Abrams tank and nine Bradley vehicles, while choppers flew overhead, taking aerial photos. Everyone was under orders that if children were in any way endangered, the mission was to be aborted.
Abruptly, the Davidians opened fire at the tanks. Yet the teargas injection continued and CS grenades were thrown in through the windows. The walls of the buildings were no match for the tanks, and large holes appeared wherever the tanks were used. Then the vehicles pulled back for an hour to reload and went at it again.
Gotta love it when the Bushbashers defend the use of heavy miltary armor against American citizens in their own home.
The Patriot Act is terrible? Well, how would a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act be classified then?
Oh wait.. violating the Posse Comitatus Act is OK.
There wasn't anything different in Waco vs any other raid
YGBSM!
Koresh was a total whackjob; he still didn't deserve what he got in this land of Constitutional freedom. The US Governement shouldn't knock down your house with military heavy armor. Period. There are clearly other and better ways.
What's next? JDAMS through your roof if you don't contribute to Moveon.org?
-
Originally posted by crockett
So would you rather have every crack house raid turn into a 30 day hold out, because something "might" go wrong? I'm not saying the govt did the right thing in Waco, but it was pretty clear they were dealing in illegal firearms and other crimes. That would bring a ATF/FBI raid anywhere. There wasn't anything different in Waco vs any other raid, other than it went bad and more people were involved than a typical raid.
Sure the govt screwed it up and yea they should have taken him out side the house. "However" who knows what would have happened even then. They still would have had to deal with the other people that were still at the compound and they would have still had to raid the compound. At that point any possible element of surprise would have been gone and who knows how the others inside would have reacted to DK being taken captive. Hell they might have built even better defenses and faught back just the same as they did.
I'm pretty sure part of the reason the Govt screwed it up so bad, was the guys in charge probably second guessed themselves because they knew there were women and children inside. I'm sure the fact that they were some whacked out cult that had already threatened to return gunfire, had a little to do with how it played out as well.
Thinkin Crockett has NOT researched the issue of Waco? Perhaps Crockett only watched the info presented by the MEDIA and swallowed it hook line and sinker?
Crack house? What does a crack house have to do with Waco?
There is WAY to many questions that were put to our government regarding Waco, that have NOT been answered in a satisfactory manner, or ignored, to suite me!
Too many half truths and lame REASON given by our government regarding Waco as well.
BATF, and the Feds, had NO powers of arrest regarding the child molestation charges. Furthermore several Texas Social workers had been out to the compound on several occasions prior to all this and said there were NO GROUNDS for any such charges!
As to the illegal weapons, none have ever been produced or shown to anyone!
At one point the BATF were seen, on film/video, to be leaving the compound at GUN POINT! They had run out of ammunition it seems. SO had the people at Waco wanted to shoot/murder those BATF agents there would have been nothing to prevent them from doing so!
BTW the cameras that were there were present at the BATF's request!
Another point is the use of C.S. gas on civilians in an ENCLOSED space. C.S. gas was OUTLAWED by the Geneva Convention! And those advising the use of that gas should have been charged with crimes against humanity IMHO. It is KNOWN that using such gases in an enclosed space is LETHAL!
There are many other questions that IMHO have not been answered or have been ignored, or the evidence was lost, or never produced.
For me, what happened at Waco and the after math are not so simple as Crockett SEEMS to believe.
Might wanna read the following and THINK upon what is said for awhile........
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that
the evils of this world can be cured by legislation."
Thomas B. Reed (1839-1902)
American lawyer, politician
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
slaves." William Pitt English politician, prime minister.
"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we
are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love."
Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944)
Ameican lawyer, businessman, politician
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Anglo-American writer
"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live." Oscar Wilde Anglo-
Irish author.
"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely
municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I
believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good
manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy
except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist
-
Originally posted by wrag
Another point is the use of C.S. gas on civilians in an ENCLOSED space. C.S. gas was OUTLAWED by the Geneva Convention!
Even the use of CS gas might be overlooked if it weren`t for the manner in which it was injected.
The so called "propellant" mixed with the CS gas makes a deadly poison. They were aware of this.
It is also interesting to watch the critique of the footage taken from the air, as the tank assault started and continued , by one of the head developers of FLIR technology. He clearly points out many instances of automatic gun fire coming from the assault vehicles as they delivered the gas.
From their point of view it had to be done. That was the Feds only chance of CYA. Kill everyone.
It`s really shocking to see people from this country defend the actions taken at Waco by the Feds. It is similar to cutting your own throat and then denying the blood spilling out is YOURS.
-
janet reno makes george bush look good :cry
-
yep... yuknurd... if you want to give some stripper your bucks it most certainly is not my business.
crock-it what is wrong with you? you claim this superior empathy yet you watch our military KILL 28 CHILDREN.. they knew the children were in there...
The ATF fired first... the ATF ran out of bullets and had to expose their cowardy butts to fire from the house.. the dividians could have killed every one of em but they didn't.
And for what crock-it? what crime was worth killing all these people? they were suspected of not paying a tax... a tax on the right to keep and bear arms... as it turned out.... no taxable weapons were ever found? and yet.. you go ballistic over the iraq "WMD" debacle.. I find this as best... ironic.. at worst... agendized and dishonest.
But... even better.. the local sheriff was at the "compound" earlier and the dividians were open to being searched by him or by anyone who wanted to come there and do it.
Koresh jogged every day.. he could have been nabbed any time.
Why were these people attacked by our government and killed? what is good enough reason for you? What crime do you think is bad enough that 28 children (never mind the adults) have to be burned alive by our government?
I don't think I will bother to even chuckle in the future tho when you use "compassion" to explain one of your lefty views. You are a perfect liberal.. only those who agree with you deserve compassion and empathy.
lazs
-
quote:Originally posted by wrag
Another point is the use of C.S. gas on civilians in an ENCLOSED space. C.S. gas was OUTLAWED by the Geneva Convention!
Geneva convention or not, every man or woman that enlists in the armed forces (any branch), gets exposed to it in basic training. It is done intentionally and in an enclosed space for the sole purpose of giving everyone a "taste" It is nasty stuff, but that "taste" gives one impetus to don chemical protective gear in a hurry! It is also used in field training in open space and enclosed spaces as in Ranger school for urban assault training. I know, because I had the "priveledge" of that "taste" on more than one occasion.
Yes, it burns, yes it has the potential to make one vomit. Is it lethal? I would not think so. Is it effective? Absolutely. Why does the Geneva convention ban it? Not sure.
My personal opinion is as follows: After being gassed with CS, you want to get as far away as possible. It really is unpleasant. Wearing a gas mask helps, to a point. I have still witnessed people vomit inside their masks. In addition, any exposed skin still burns and is very uncomfortable.
My point is that anyone who is gassed for the purpose of being dispersed (as in a riot), or to be flushed out into the open, subsequentially dons a gas mask, and then continues to fight is definately not going to be reasoned with and should be considered a threat. Anyone who has had to go through combat training in a "chemical threat" environment knows that even with a mask, it still takes some serious resolve to continue the fight. The stuff permeates everywhere and it is not a pleasant sensation by any means.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
quote:Originally posted by wrag
Another point is the use of C.S. gas on civilians in an ENCLOSED space. C.S. gas was OUTLAWED by the Geneva Convention!
Geneva convention or not, every man or woman that enlists in the armed forces (any branch), gets exposed to it in basic training. It is done intentionally and in an enclosed space for the sole purpose of giving everyone a "taste" It is nasty stuff, but that "taste" gives one impetus to don chemical protective gear in a hurry! It is also used in field training in open space and enclosed spaces as in Ranger school for urban assault training. I know, because I had the "priveledge" of that "taste" on more than one occasion.
Yes, it burns, yes it has the potential to make one vomit. Is it lethal? I would not think so. Is it effective? Absolutely. Why does the Geneva convention ban it? Not sure.
My personal opinion is as follows: After being gassed with CS, you want to get as far away as possible. It really is unpleasant. Wearing a gas mask helps, to a point. I have still witnessed people vomit inside their masks. In addition, any exposed skin still burns and is very uncomfortable.
My point is that anyone who is gassed for the purpose of being dispersed (as in a riot), or to be flushed out into the open, subsequentially dons a gas mask, and then continues to fight is definately not going to be reasoned with and should be considered a threat. Anyone who has had to go through combat training in a "chemical threat" environment knows that even with a mask, it still takes some serious resolve to continue the fight. The stuff permeates everywhere and it is not a pleasant sensation by any means.
IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE, like the location of the children at Waco, plus the amount of gas used at Waco, C.S. GAS IS LETHAL!
There does that explain it any better?
Yes I was exposed to it while in the military. The amount used was considerably less then the amount used at Waco. So that makes it alright to use on children?
What gas mask? The children had gas mask?
The Geneva Convention bans it because???? why don't you do a look up?
IMHO there is NO justification for using C.S. gas at Waco and IMHO anyone trying to justify that use is either unaware of all the facts, a Gov. FAN, or in the future should be carefully examined for possible mental illness................ Janet Reno should have been tried for crimes against humanity AND her advisor's should have been tried right along with her, THAT is my opinion regarding the government use of C.S. gas at Waco.
As to what happened at Waco........... in it's entirety........
What? You gonna say they were just a bunch of religious nuts, and that somehow makes it alright? That being different then others somehow makes them all less then human? That somehow makes those children less then human? That they got what they deserved because they didn't do what the Government told them to do?
Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Washington, etc... DIDN'T do what the GOVERNMENT told them to do!
WHO is the Government? Or maybe I should ask who is the Government supposed to be? I did NOT, I do NOT, and I shall NOT condone what happened at Waco, OR Ruby Ridge.
Do I need to put all those quotes from my earlier post in again? You didn't read em? They don't make sense to you?
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Yes, it burns, yes it has the potential to make one vomit. Is it lethal?
If used as it was in Waco you damn right it`s lethal.
The propellant/misting agent mixed with the gas forms a deadly poison.
Check out "Waco: The Rules Of Engagement" when you get a chance.
-
Revolution? No revolution in Rome. It just faded into obscurity and inconsequentiality. People got their bread and circuses until there was none left. Then they went home.
-
Romans shoulda ditched the bread and circus addicts.
-
I agree moot but they vote here. They vote for the politicans they hate to take more and more of their money and give them things they think are free...
Now they want "free medical care" they think it is a right somehow... They want to tell more and more people how to run their lives and what risks are acceptable and what freedoms are cheap enough or wholesome enough or just... are acceptable to them.
Problem is.. there is always a reason why you should not be free... it always costs something to somebody or offends someone.
lazs
-
I just wonder if the "revolutions" scenario would ever happen, as opposed to a fade to black scenario like Iron says. If it's the former, e.g. conservatives getting fed up and seceding (or a mutual agreement to), then the eventual resolution may be worth the fall and conflict (of whatever degree).
It'd be a shame, though, because in the end, the bread and circus numbskulls would for the most part realize they were wrong. It would have been a matter of arguing the "right" way of life transparently enough for them to recognize it as such.
-
At this point.. I see the only hope as being in states rights... Lincoln pretty much screwed us on that but...
Ideal would be for there to be real blue and red states... states where people could go and be free and blue states where they could go and be commies.
People would have choice then. It would be even better if we would allow states the right of secession.. even a limited version... model it after say UK... you could have a central government with limited powers but states with all other rights. The states would only have to obey the constitution as their state courts interpreted it and to help support and army and pay for representitives and the federal court.
I think this would be great... I think it would not happen.. the blue states want to impose their will.. they have the population to do it.
I can't think of a point that would allow for a civil war. We are likely just doomed... unless of course the pendulum just swings back the other way... if people get fed up with the flood of socialism and vote out every politician each and every time.
pretty soon.. someone who claimed he wanted to give us more individual freedom... and worked for it... if the polls showed his popularity of his ideas... more scumbag politicians would race to see who could offer the least socialism.
I actually think that england will be first to get fed up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
At this point.. I see the only hope as being in states rights... Lincoln pretty much screwed us on that but...
Ideal would be for there to be real blue and red states... states where people could go and be free and blue states where they could go and be commies.
People would have choice then. It would be even better if we would allow states the right of secession.. even a limited version... model it after say UK... you could have a central government with limited powers but states with all other rights. The states would only have to obey the constitution as their state courts interpreted it and to help support and army and pay for representitives and the federal court.
I think this would be great... I think it would not happen.. the blue states want to impose their will.. they have the population to do it.
I can't think of a point that would allow for a civil war. We are likely just doomed... unless of course the pendulum just swings back the other way... if people get fed up with the flood of socialism and vote out every politician each and every time.
pretty soon.. someone who claimed he wanted to give us more individual freedom... and worked for it... if the polls showed his popularity of his ideas... more scumbag politicians would race to see who could offer the least socialism.
I actually think that england will be first to get fed up.
lazs
With the radicalism I perceive in Liberalism, or at least my radicalization, I think there will be a flash point before 2010 if the Democrats take the Presidential seat. I am not convinced that they will though.
-
Seeing as how Waco was a police matter the use of CS gas was perfectly legal. Also the military vehicles used at Waco were from the Texas National Guard called up by order of the Govenor of Texas at the request from the ATF.
Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (signed in 1993), because its use could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic agents, such as nerve gas. However, domestic police use of CS is legal in many countries. The use of CS gas by police agencies is legal in the United States.
In 1971, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard wrote the Packard Memo or Employment of Military Resources in the Event of Civil Disturbances which modified the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Part 215, Section 6. This addition revoked a substantial part of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act providing for 'exceptions' to the Act "to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning and public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances, disasters, or calamities seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation" and "to protect Federal government functions when the need for protection exists". "Packard's directive (stated) that turning over law enforcement will 'normally' require a Presidential Executive Order, but that this requirement can be waived in 'cases of sudden and unexpected emergencies... which require that immediate military action be taken." (Lindorff, 1988) Packard's directive, in essence, reinstated the possibility of martial law in the United States, prohibited since 1878. "Martial law was defined in an integral Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) memo written in 1982... The memo, written by FEMA official John Brinkerhoff to agency director Louis Giuffrida, notes that martial law “suspends all prior existing laws, functions, systems, and programs of civil government, replacing them... with a military system.” (Lindorff, 1988).
There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:
National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
The whole situation down in Waco was messed up but the government didn't create the mess. Those folks inside that compound were breaking the law. The proper warrants were filed for the arrest of several of the people in that compound. The ATF waited for days before going in due to the fact they were trying to get the women and children out of the compound. Those ATF agents were faced with a tough job with nothing but a bad outcome possible and had the entire world watching them and second guessing them.
It's real easy to sit back in your recliner and point fingers at people who are just trying to do their jobs and then blame them for screwing up when something bad happens. If you think you can do it better than them get off your bellybutton and go do it, but don't complain when the next armchair general blames you when you screw it up.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Seeing as how Waco was a police matter the use of CS gas was perfectly legal. Also the military vehicles used at Waco were from the Texas National Guard called up by order of the Govenor of Texas at the request from the ATF.
Use of CS in war is prohibited under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (signed in 1993), because its use could easily trigger retaliation with much more toxic agents, such as nerve gas. However, domestic police use of CS is legal in many countries. The use of CS gas by police agencies is legal in the United States.
In 1971, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard wrote the Packard Memo or Employment of Military Resources in the Event of Civil Disturbances which modified the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Part 215, Section 6. This addition revoked a substantial part of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act providing for 'exceptions' to the Act "to prevent loss of life or wanton destruction of property and to restore governmental functioning and public order when sudden and unexpected civil disturbances, disasters, or calamities seriously endanger life and property and disrupt normal governmental functions to such an extent that duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation" and "to protect Federal government functions when the need for protection exists". "Packard's directive (stated) that turning over law enforcement will 'normally' require a Presidential Executive Order, but that this requirement can be waived in 'cases of sudden and unexpected emergencies... which require that immediate military action be taken." (Lindorff, 1988) Packard's directive, in essence, reinstated the possibility of martial law in the United States, prohibited since 1878. "Martial law was defined in an integral Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) memo written in 1982... The memo, written by FEMA official John Brinkerhoff to agency director Louis Giuffrida, notes that martial law “suspends all prior existing laws, functions, systems, and programs of civil government, replacing them... with a military system.” (Lindorff, 1988).
There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:
National Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state;
Troops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots;
Troops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act
Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness.
The whole situation down in Waco was messed up but the government didn't create the mess. Those folks inside that compound were breaking the law. The proper warrants were filed for the arrest of several of the people in that compound. The ATF waited for days before going in due to the fact they were trying to get the women and children out of the compound. Those ATF agents were faced with a tough job with nothing but a bad outcome possible and had the entire world watching them and second guessing them.
It's real easy to sit back in your recliner and point fingers at people who are just trying to do their jobs and then blame them for screwing up when something bad happens. If you think you can do it better than them get off your bellybutton and go do it, but don't complain when the next armchair general blames you when you screw it up.
Hmmm so you have ALL the facts?
You are fully informed as to WHAT happened and all the hows and whens?
YOU KNOW who fired first?
You appear to be a lawyer.................
Sorry, i've looked the entire situation over from several different points of view and I've come to hold the opinion.......
The ATTACK as staged by the ATF was UNNECESSARY,
The use of military vehicles AND personal was UNNECESSARY,
The STOOPID screaming rabbit audio tapes etc. only worsened the situation,
IMHO The statements made by Janet Reno regarding the Militias possibly getting evolved caused her to order the actions in the first place, and her apologies afterward using the I didn't know, I didn't realize, etc say a great deal as well.
Guess the best way I can express myself has pretty much already been said.
IMHO The justification for the governments actions, in this case, is NOT there!
And I guess I need to repeat somethings here soooooo................
The ATF CLAIMED arms violations were the reason for the actions taken, BUT none of the arms were EVER produced or showen to the public........
"The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
The child molestation charges.......... hmm several Texas Social Workers had been out to the compound in the time period prior to......... NO GROUNDS were found for such charges! And WHEN did the Feds get the authority to deal with such crimes anyway? That historically has been dealt with by EACH STATE.
HEY! IF you think the Feds were correct or had the authority to do as they did in the Waco case then the following probably makes NO SENSE to you.........
"Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself."
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime." - Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
- Thomas Jefferson"
“[A] wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” —Thomas Jefferson
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?" - Patrick Henry
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
and finally........
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of
slaves." William Pitt English politician, prime minister.
"Whenever we take away the liberties of those whom we hate we
are opening the way to loss of liberty for those we love."
Wendell L. Willkie (1892-1944)
Ameican lawyer, businessman, politician
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Anglo-American writer
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
In 1971, Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard wrote the Packard Memo or Employment of Military Resources in the Event of Civil Disturbances which modified the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Part 215, Section 6. This addition revoked a substantial part of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act providing for 'exceptions'
Nothing that happened to Koresh at Waco rises to the level that would make the affair one of the exceptions you have posted.
Nothing.
It was still illegal to put heavy armor, be it Guard or Regular, against those citizens.
-
Two good DVD's on Waco are "Waco the rules of engagement" (nominated for an academy award) and "Waco a new revelation"
These are documentaries with real footage.. real tapes of the "negotiations" and real interviews with the survivors.
they also review the forward looking infared with the guy who invented it and you can see soldiers dropping out of the bottom of the tanks and firing into the burning ruins at people trying to get out.
You can see the helicopters spraying the "compound" with machine gun fire.
You can hear the "negotiator" telling the Koresh aid that it "is too late" when the guy asks if they can just walk out and surrender.. the guys says. "you mean they will kill us?" and there is silence followed by.. "yes"
Regardless... it is a fact that the atf shot first for no reason. it is a fact that they could have served the warrants any time the week before and that koresh was willing to let anyone search the place including the local police who were not in the least afraid of him or his people.
It is a fact that 28 children were burned alive (and more adults) for nothing.
Why nothing? the warrants could have been served peacefully as I have stated and... when it was all over.. there were no automatic weapons.. none were ever found.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Seeing as how Waco was a police matter the use of CS gas was perfectly legal.
The CS gas mixed with the propellant/misting agent, for the high volume injection into the building ,as was done in Waco, is not acceptable or legal under any circumstances.
It`s called murder.
-
and crock-it... yes, I do think that even in a crak house... you do not shoot into the building and set it on fire when there are dozens of children inside even if it has taken you a month with no resolution.
If you can't find a team with enough balls to go in then you just wait em out. You don't butcher children.
lazs
-
Originally posted by wrag
IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE, like the location of the children at Waco, plus the amount of gas used at Waco, C.S. GAS IS LETHAL!
There does that explain it any better?
Yes I was exposed to it while in the military. The amount used was considerably less then the amount used at Waco. So that makes it alright to use on children?
What gas mask? The children had gas mask?
The Geneva Convention bans it because???? why don't you do a look up?
IMHO there is NO justification for using C.S. gas at Waco and IMHO anyone trying to justify that use is either unaware of all the facts, a Gov. FAN, or in the future should be carefully examined for possible mental illness................ Janet Reno should have been tried for crimes against humanity AND her advisor's should have been tried right along with her, THAT is my opinion regarding the government use of C.S. gas at Waco.
As to what happened at Waco........... in it's entirety........
What? You gonna say they were just a bunch of religious nuts, and that somehow makes it alright? That being different then others somehow makes them all less then human? That somehow makes those children less then human? That they got what they deserved because they didn't do what the Government told them to do?
Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hancock, Washington, etc... DIDN'T do what the GOVERNMENT told them to do!
WHO is the Government? Or maybe I should ask who is the Government supposed to be? I did NOT, I do NOT, and I shall NOT condone what happened at Waco, OR Ruby Ridge.
Do I need to put all those quotes from my earlier post in again? You didn't read em? They don't make sense to you?
I do, in fact, read. If you are so inclined to read
Please some information at the following link CS GAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas)
I am still reading it described as non-lethal. Upon furthur reading, one may find that the agent it was mixed with for dispersal, dichloromethane, is organic and also non-lethal. Nowhere does it mention about any degree of lethality regardless of how well or poorly ventilated the area of use is. The worst case cited is where one may have a (non-lethal) allergic reaction that may cause crusted skin blisters.
As far as the Geneva Convention banning its use, I have indeed read about it. Use of all chenical weapons is banned. The only time CS is cated specifically is where it states that CS should not be used because it may lead to the enemy or opposition using a lethal chemical attack in retaliation. This info can be found via a link from the wikipedia site.
Condone it's use on children I do not.
Question it's lethality, I do.
Do the ATF personnel need to grow some stones? By all means.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
I do, in fact, read. If you are so inclined to read
Please some information at the following link CS GAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas)
I am still reading it described as non-lethal. Upon furthur reading, one may find that the agent it was mixed with for dispersal, dichloromethane, is organic and also non-lethal. Nowhere does it mention about any degree of lethality regardless of how well or poorly ventilated the area of use is. The worst case cited is where one may have a (non-lethal) allergic reaction that may cause crusted skin blisters.
As far as the Geneva Convention banning its use, I have indeed read about it. Use of all chenical weapons is banned. The only time CS is cated specifically is where it states that CS should not be used because it may lead to the enemy or opposition using a lethal chemical attack in retaliation. This info can be found via a link from the wikipedia site.
Condone it's use on children I do not.
Question it's lethality, I do.
Do the ATF personnel need to grow some stones? By all means.
Once more, check out Waco: The rules Of Engagement.
"AT NOON, TANKS HIT THE COMPOUND WITH AN ATOMIZED MIXTURE HEATED SO THAT IT WOULD
RELEASE HYDROGEN CYANIDE AND CARBON MONOXIDE.
Over 400 canisters were launched into their home, for a duration of over 6 hours.
*CS gas in large doses causes the victim to be come disorientated, it greatly diminishes their ability to make decisions.
It blinds them, and burns their lungs, causing vomiting of mucus and bile, and muscle wrenching seizures. Extended exposure causes unconsciousness and it can and does KILL*
Autopsies indicate that large numbers of people were already dead
from hydrogen cyanide gas before the fire.
People died from cyanide poisoning within four to five minutes.
The technical data also states CS powder will ignite at 327 F and once ignited will burn at temperatures as high as 4,200 F, causing it to function as a high-temperature fire accelerant.
Fire trucks were deliberately kept away until the building till it was only smoldering embers
-- for at least 41 minutes -- after the fire broke out."
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
I do, in fact, read. If you are so inclined to read
Please some information at the following link CS GAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas)
I am still reading it described as non-lethal. Upon furthur reading, one may find that the agent it was mixed with for dispersal, dichloromethane, is organic and also non-lethal. Nowhere does it mention about any degree of lethality regardless of how well or poorly ventilated the area of use is. The worst case cited is where one may have a (non-lethal) allergic reaction that may cause crusted skin blisters.
As far as the Geneva Convention banning its use, I have indeed read about it. Use of all chenical weapons is banned. The only time CS is cated specifically is where it states that CS should not be used because it may lead to the enemy or opposition using a lethal chemical attack in retaliation. This info can be found via a link from the wikipedia site.
Condone it's use on children I do not.
Question it's lethality, I do.
Do the ATF personnel need to grow some stones? By all means.
The concentration used and the confined area involved, they couldn't get OUT! They couldn't breath! They died!
I can say that because.........
I was exposed to C.S. during my time in the military. The amount used was VERY low compared to what was sprayed into that building. The reaction I got from just that little bit was pretty severe. The mucus flow produced by my reaction continued for some time afterward. Others that were exposed with me and similar reactions. Some were even throwing up afterward.
Those children NEVER had a chance!
As too wikipedia.... B. S. to it. I don't trust it and the reports are "The Government" regularly CHANGES the content of wikipedia on things they don't like!
I suggest you look elsewhere for your information!
-
Waco was a crime pure and simple. the BATF wished to make a big news coup and make their public image better with a daring raid. The best thing about a revolution would have that entire organization from the director down to the seceratary chick in the mailroom tried for treason, convicted and put up against a wall.
-
The solution is simple: don't re-elect the same two incompetent parties.
There is nothing easier and more soothing to the psyche than voting Independent, it's just as easy as voting for one of the existing failed DC crime families, and every time they do something felony stupid, a DC norm these days, you can sleep at night knowing your vote had nothing to do with it.
-
what Independent is running for president? What Independent is running for any office? It's easy to say "vote Independent", but where are the candidates?
-
Originally posted by john9001
what Independent is running for president? What Independent is running for any office? It's easy to say "vote Independent", but where are the candidates?
Ron Paul looks VERY GOOD.
He's currently registered as a Rep. but he is actually a Liberatarion.
Do a lookup on the net and then FOLLOW the leads. Think you will find this person most interesting!
In all truth I've been considering changing my voter status from declined to state to Liberatarion.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
John as a member of the military (12 years of service) I can tell you this. The US Military will NEVER form a coup. It's not designed to follow a leader that isn't endorsed by the congress.
One thing is for sure. Every member of the military is sworn to "uphold and defend the constitution of the United States". That is we do not swear any type of alegence to the federal govt. itself except to "obey the orders of the commander in chief and the officers appointed over me". With that said it is hard pressed that we will follow a general that will lead us to a coup.
Without the order that we have now discipline in the US armed forces will be hard to maintain at best. Do lead a coup you'd have to have some hard core officers leading some well respected NCOs on a mission that they've never ever been trained to do.
IMHO it would be hard pressed to carry out with the current chain of command.
I am a Non-Commissioned Officer and I would have a hard time ordering members that I am in charge of to lead a coup against my government. The same goverment wich was elected by the people in accordance with the constitution that I swore to uphold and defend.
Although I have NEVER served. When "this topic comes up". They have all said this (Vet's): "I would not kill an American."
-
As Guns said US military swear to defend the Constitution, not a King, Queen or any person at all.
It's a very small point that has a very large effect.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As Guns said US military swear to defend the Constitution, not a King, Queen or any person at all.
It's a very small point that has a very large effect.
It also states that a soldier will defend against all enemies, foriegn AND domestic.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Ron Paul looks VERY GOOD.
He's currently registered as a Rep. but he is actually a Liberatarion.
Do a lookup on the net and then FOLLOW the leads. Think you will find this person most interesting!
In all truth I've been considering changing my voter status from declined to state to Liberatarion.
Ron Paul is the way to go!:aok
-
Ron Paul is running as a republican.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
It also states that a soldier will defend against all enemies, foriegn AND domestic.
Yes, it does. It actually says:
I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.
So, are you trying to make the case that Koresh and his group were a threat to the Constitution of the US?
Consider the Posse Comitatus Act and amendments/revisions thereto before you answer.
Because there is NO WAY the use of heavy armor was authorized/justified by either the oath or the Posse Comitatus Act + revisions.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because there is NO WAY the use of heavy armor was authorized/justified by either the oath or the Posse Comitatus Act + revisions.
one revision says military is authorized if drugs are involved as in catching drug smugglers.
the ATF/FBI lied to the gov to get him to authorize the use of the nat guard armor. They said it was for a "drug raid".
-
If what you say is true, it's just more proof that the use of the armor was totally unjustified.
People in government should have gone to prison over the Koresh raid.
-
at the end of the day... it just proves that the people who weep openly about car safety and global warming and all it will do to the "children" are smugly happy that 28 children were smothered and burned to death by the government because their parents weren't the right kind of people.
They don't really care about children at all.. they care about children if they can use em and that is it.
As for ron paul... we won't get to vote for him unless he runs as an independent and then... he will probly get most of his money from democrats who want hillary to win. there are no democrats who would vote for a libertarian... a libertarian offends democrats even more than a republican does.. libertarian is the total opposite of democrat.
but... how does throwing my vote away on an independent and thereby letting some commie shrew like hillary get in..... how does that help me again?
What is the gain of my protest vote again?
lazs
-
Originally posted by wrag
The concentration used and the confined area involved, they couldn't get OUT! They couldn't breath! They died!
I can say that because.........
I was exposed to C.S. during my time in the military. The amount used was VERY low compared to what was sprayed into that building. The reaction I got from just that little bit was pretty severe. The mucus flow produced by my reaction continued for some time afterward. Others that were exposed with me and similar reactions. Some were even throwing up afterward.
Those children NEVER had a chance!
As too wikipedia.... B. S. to it. I don't trust it and the reports are "The Government" regularly CHANGES the content of wikipedia on things they don't like!
I suggest you look elsewhere for your information!
Wrag, please point me in the right direction. I bet that I could find (5) sources and find as many sets of different facts.
Jackal, without proper references, your "quoted facts" to me may as well have come from Barney the drunk on the Simpsons. In addition, typing them in all caps doesn't add anything to their validity. Cite sources please. For one to get all factual information from a dissertation that is clearly anti-establishment and was nominated for an academy award and an emmy award would be complete folly. It would be equated to using the script for "Judge Dredd" as a basis of government. And for pete's sake, hydrogen cyanide? Most of the world knows this as Zyklon B. Ever hear of it? Are we employing the tactics of Nazi Germany now? This also happens to be use in the gas chamber for capital punishment in the states. Is is possible they may have exposed the children and themselves to it ala "Jonestown"? Who will ever know for sure. Furthurmore, if your sources do not give complete and empirical data from the autopsies, then your source fails to pass the most fundamental of acid tests. Anything else is only promoting an alternate group of lies.
As far as the ATF people are concerned they should all be hung by the balls. Oh, wait, I don't recall any of the agents having any. All they would've needed to do was exactly what our troops do every day now. Don a flak jacket, kick in the doors, and go in personally. They were probably afraid of the children.
In conclusion, I again reiterate that what happened in Waco was an atrocity, and the tactics employed were indeed questionable if not blatantly irresponsible.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
In conclusion, I again reiterate that what happened in Waco was an atrocity, and the tactics employed were indeed questionable if not blatantly irresponsible.
More to the point, the tactics were blatantly illegal. Yet no one in government was held accountable.
Rant and rave about the Patriot Act all you like; at least it is being continually reviewed and amended by the judicial process. No one has died.
Waco was an act of war by the US government against its own citizens. Men, women and children were killed.
So which one really concerns us?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, it does. It actually says:
So, are you trying to make the case that Koresh and his group were a threat to the Constitution of the US?
Consider the Posse Comitatus Act and amendments/revisions thereto before you answer.
Because there is NO WAY the use of heavy armor was authorized/justified by either the oath or the Posse Comitatus Act + revisions.
No, not at all Toad. Only proving the lies by the ATF. Drug raid my behind! And to get the military involved? Bah.
In defense of the troops, here are the the General Orders (for the Army at least, I only know the ones for the branch of service I volunteered for):
1. I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.
2. I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner.
3. I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions to the commander of the relief.
To do anything less than follow orders is to get yourself or others around you killed. Blah blah, to those who say following orders is robot-like, and no excuse. If you are are a serviceman/woman, your function is to either make or obey orders. You are not authorized to be inventive, clever, or disobdient.
The job may not always be easy, but I don't recall EASY being in the contract. Nor does it say you must like your job. You only need to execute orders precisely and without hesitation.
-
toad... you have stated the salient fact. it was illegal and it was an evil.
If the people in the "compound" would have been a few more degrees likeable or less threatening to the average American... there would have been outrage.
The clan was vilified and made less human tho sooo... not many could identify with em..
Even so.. if there had been say 5 incidents like Waco all going on at the same time.... even the most dense and smugly secure American would have gotten it.... that our government is just like every other one there ever was... that it will kill us in a blink of an eye if it feels threatened.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
More to the point, the tactics were blatantly illegal. Yet no one in government was held accountable.
Rant and rave about the Patriot Act all you like; at least it is being continually reviewed and amended by the judicial process. No one has died.
Waco was an act of war by the US government against its own citizens. Men, women and children were killed.
So which one really concerns us?
People should still be accountable, by all means. As long as the troops are not dragged into it. As far as most of them we aware of, they were doing their duty, as ordered. I, personally, would like it to stay that way. Especially when it comes time to defend ourselves from foriegn enemies.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
If you are are a serviceman/woman, your function is to either make or obey orders. You are not authorized to be inventive, clever, or disobdient.
Lawful orders; don't forget that little modifier.
There's that UCMJ thing that you have to remember.
Would you have obeyed Calley at My Lai? Were those lawful orders?
Nope. You'd have to be disobedient in that case, right?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
toad... you have stated the salient fact. it was illegal and it was an evil.
If the people in the "compound" would have been a few more degrees likeable or less threatening to the average American... there would have been outrage.
The clan was vilified and made less human tho sooo... not many could identify with em..
Even so.. if there had been say 5 incidents like Waco all going on at the same time.... even the most dense and smugly secure American would have gotten it.... that our government is just like every other one there ever was... that it will kill us in a blink of an eye if it feels threatened.
lazs
Well said. Make them out to be the devil, so nobody gives a crap. Age-old tactic which s unfortunately, still effective.
-
yep toad.. well said... the orders were not lawful.
At least not under any constitution that I would want to live under.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Lawful orders; don't forget that little modifier.
There's that UCMJ thing that you have to remember.
Would you have obeyed Calley at My Lai? Were those lawful orders?
Nope. You'd have to be disobedient in that case, right?
I'm not recalling where it ever said lawful in MY general orders. That would leave my duty to self interperatation. That is not a soldiers job to play lawyer.
Point taken, but unfortunately, who's place is it to determine what is lawful in any given circumstance. Not moral, but lawful. I know that the geneva convention states that a soldier cannot be proscecuted for following orders, but please excuse me, I'm not sure what what the UCMJ has to say about it. It has been quite some time since its rules have governed me.
*EDIT* Also, there we rapes, mutilations, etc at My Lai that were blatently unlawful, and it was mostly women and children.
It was quite unfortunate that Calley was the only one proscecuted. Most of the troops that were under his command had finished their tour and service and were, therefore exempt from proscecution under the law.
-
Check out Article 92 of the UCMJ, Failure to obey order or regulation.
-
Thanks, gonna check it out now.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Jackal, without proper references, your "quoted facts" to me may as well have come from Barney the drunk on the Simpsons. In addition, typing them in all caps doesn't add anything to their validity. Cite sources please. . /B]
Hello! Anyone home. ---------> Waco: The Rules Of Engagement.
Are we employing the tactics of Nazi Germany now?
Yathink.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Hello! Anyone home. ---------> Waco: The Rules Of Engagement.
Yathink.
Exactly my point. Anything made into a Hollywood movie must have the truth of its roots questioned. So please, in the future, quote me completey and not out of context.
-
Stick a fork in him. He`s done.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Exactly my point. Anything made into a Hollywood movie must have the truth of its roots questioned. So please, in the future, quote me completey and not out of context.
The film was NOT made by Hollywood IIRC??????????????
Plus several books have been written regarding the issues AND every fact reported is SOURCED if YOU care to check them.
AND NOWHERE is Wikipedia relied upon..............
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Stick a fork in him. He`s done.
Thats your best rebuttal? I apologize. I usually try not to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Just doesn't seem fair.
-
I'm still trying to figure out where one can find info that says CS is lethal.
I've tried here (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7233/458#B3) , here (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=539444) , and here (http://www.jem-journal.com/article/PIIS0736467905000648/abstract)
just for starters.
Still looking........
-
http://stimson.org/cbw/?sn=CB2001121893
you probably should read this to understand the above
http://911emg.com/pages/library/USAMRICD%20CW%20Agent.PDF
-
I understand that I still see no claims to the lethality of CS gas. In fact, this data proves once again that it is on the bottom of the toxcicity chart. I have seen this chart (or one very similar) at basic NBC training. Thank you for the link.
I am certain that it could be lethal in in an enclosed space due to the lack of fresh oxygen, but being in an enclosed space with me after an Eagles game of cheesesteaks, baked beans, and beer could be lethal. Both due to asphyxiation, but not caused by the the chemical agent (CS for the former or methane for the latter) directly.
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Thats your best rebuttal?
Rebuttal? :D
There is nothing to debate until you get your head out of your...........well until you will look at the sources that has been given you.
I apologize.
Thanks. I feel better.
I usually try not to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I can help you with that problem also.
Don`t stand in front of the mirror and talk to yourself.
You have had a prime ribeye prepared, cooked to perfection and served on a platter, along with nice sides and a drink.
So far all you have done is stuck the fork in your eye.
-
Again, I am looking to find a source of information that unequivocally shows that CS, by itself, is lethal.
I will be patiently waiting.
*edit*
Unfortunately, Waco TROE, doesn't provide this information. So please take the rib-eye back to the kitchen, for it is not what I ordered. In the meantime, I'll keep the drink.