I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
I saw the fight and like most of you was pretty underwhelmed by what I saw.
I didn't see the fight, but what shocks me is the fact that millions of people paid a hundred dollars to watch this and both fighters walked away with over $100 million each for one night's work, not to mention the additional hundreds of millions earned by the sleazy group of promoters and PPV operators and cable companies. The lefty in me says:
1. If all the people had given that $100 to charity instead of to cable promoters to view a lackluster fight featuring two 30+ years olds, that would be seven hundred million dollars that could do a whole lot of good in the world other than making two multi-millionaire fighters and a bunch of sleazy cable promoters even richer than they are. Hell, if instead of giving it to charity these same people had spent this $100 buying stuff in locally owned stores it would have done far more good for the economy than giving to these people.
2. Anyone who paid $100 for this fight and still rails and moans about their "tax burden" is speaking to dead air.
3. If there's any consolation, hopefully these two fighters are Americans and will have to pay 35% or more of their winning in taxes, although I'm sure they'll have sleazy accountants and lawyers who will have this money placed in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes at all.
I saw the fight and like most of you was pretty underwhelmed by what I saw.
I didn't see the fight, but what shocks me is the fact that millions of people paid a hundred dollars to watch this and both fighters walked away with over $100 million each for one night's work, not to mention the additional hundreds of millions earned by the sleazy group of promoters and PPV operators and cable companies. The lefty in me says:
1. If all the people had given that $100 to charity instead of to cable promoters to view a lackluster fight featuring two 30+ years olds, that would be seven hundred million dollars that could do a whole lot of good in the world other than making two multi-millionaire fighters and a bunch of sleazy cable promoters even richer than they are. Hell, if instead of giving it to charity these same people had spent this $100 buying stuff in locally owned stores it would have done far more good for the economy than giving to these people.
2. Anyone who paid $100 for this fight and still rails and moans about their "tax burden" is speaking to dead air.
3. If there's any consolation, hopefully these two fighters are Americans and will have to pay 35% or more of their winning in taxes, although I'm sure they'll have sleazy accountants and lawyers who will have this money placed in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes at all.
Hoe! Lee! Crap!,..... Lefty?......LMAO. Come on now. Maybe there's a better word than lefty for what I just read?
1. Private money would be better off with the government. (After all, they will spend it fairly, wisely and effectively with none wasted.)
2. Private citizens appropriately don't deserve a voice on tax matters if they buy any non-essential products.
3. Wouldn't it be great if a larger percentage of private citizen's money could belong to the government? (The ones who earned it don't deserve it. They are all greedy cheaters, at least those who make enough money to actually pay taxes and support the federal government.)
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
I've been thinking about this as well. While I generally agreed with the sentiments expressed in Eulogy's post, we've certainly done so before, as have nearly all governments / kingdoms / empires etc. throughout all of recorded history, and probably then some. While the case at hand is probably just one more example of rabid Obama-hating foaming at the mouth loonies running amok, the government always bears watching.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
I've been thinking about this as well. While I generally agreed with the sentiments expressed in Eulogy's post, we've certainly done so before, as have nearly all governments / kingdoms / empires etc. throughout all of recorded history, and probably then some. While the case at hand is probably just one more example of rabid Obama-hating foaming at the mouth loonies running amok, the government always bears watching.
I think it's unbelievable that people really think that the federal government would set up internment camps in empty Walmarts on American soil for political prisoners. For the president to have large segments of the population arrested as political prisoners and then detained in prison camps in one of the most conservative state in the union seems ridiculous. I guess rounding up around a third of country and systematically murdering them sounds like a reasonable possibility to some people, I just thought they would be wearing tin foil hats and not be an elected governor.
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
I've been thinking about this as well. While I generally agreed with the sentiments expressed in Eulogy's post, we've certainly done so before, as have nearly all governments / kingdoms / empires etc. throughout all of recorded history, and probably then some. While the case at hand is probably just one more example of rabid Obama-hating foaming at the mouth loonies running amok, the government always bears watching.
I think it's unbelievable that people really think that the federal government would set up internment camps in empty Walmarts on American soil for political prisoners. For the president to have large segments of the population arrested as political prisoners and then detained in prison camps in one of the most conservative state in the union seems ridiculous. I guess rounding up around a third of country and systematically murdering them sounds like a reasonable possibility to some people, I just thought they would be wearing tin foil hats and not be an elected governor.
Well, you'd think so. I hope so, too. Still...
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I've been thinking about this as well. While I generally agreed with the sentiments expressed in Eulogy's post, we've certainly done so before, as have nearly all governments / kingdoms / empires etc. throughout all of recorded history, and probably then some. While the case at hand is probably just one more example of rabid Obama-hating foaming at the mouth loonies running amok, the government always bears watching.
I think it's unbelievable that people really think that the federal government would set up internment camps in empty Walmarts on American soil for political prisoners. For the president to have large segments of the population arrested as political prisoners and then detained in prison camps in one of the most conservative state in the union seems ridiculous. I guess rounding up around a third of country and systematically murdering them sounds like a reasonable possibility to some people, I just thought they would be wearing tin foil hats and not be an elected governor.
There's only one instance in U.S. history that I know of when mass numbers of law-abiding U.S. citizens were sent to internment camps for political reasons, and that was the shameful and indefensible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Since that time, federal and state governments have learned that it's far more effective to use more roundabout routes to oppress and target people for their beliefs and backgrounds, such as McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Nixon's infamous "Enemies List," and racial and religious profiling. You get all the benefits of trashing the rights of people who are different without all the nasty PR and huge expenses of gulaging "undesirables."
I've been thinking about this as well. While I generally agreed with the sentiments expressed in Eulogy's post, we've certainly done so before, as have nearly all governments / kingdoms / empires etc. throughout all of recorded history, and probably then some. While the case at hand is probably just one more example of rabid Obama-hating foaming at the mouth loonies running amok, the government always bears watching.
I think it's unbelievable that people really think that the federal government would set up internment camps in empty Walmarts on American soil for political prisoners. For the president to have large segments of the population arrested as political prisoners and then detained in prison camps in one of the most conservative state in the union seems ridiculous. I guess rounding up around a third of country and systematically murdering them sounds like a reasonable possibility to some people, I just thought they would be wearing tin foil hats and not be an elected governor.
There's only one instance in U.S. history that I know of when mass numbers of law-abiding U.S. citizens were sent to internment camps for political reasons, and that was the shameful and indefensible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Since that time, federal and state governments have learned that it's far more effective to use more roundabout routes to oppress and target people for their beliefs and backgrounds, such as McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Nixon's infamous "Enemies List," and racial and religious profiling. You get all the benefits of trashing the rights of people who are different without all the nasty PR and huge expenses of gulaging "undesirables."
Well, there were the Cherokee. The tactics have certainly been refined, though.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I've been thinking about this as well. While I generally agreed with the sentiments expressed in Eulogy's post, we've certainly done so before, as have nearly all governments / kingdoms / empires etc. throughout all of recorded history, and probably then some. While the case at hand is probably just one more example of rabid Obama-hating foaming at the mouth loonies running amok, the government always bears watching.
I think it's unbelievable that people really think that the federal government would set up internment camps in empty Walmarts on American soil for political prisoners. For the president to have large segments of the population arrested as political prisoners and then detained in prison camps in one of the most conservative state in the union seems ridiculous. I guess rounding up around a third of country and systematically murdering them sounds like a reasonable possibility to some people, I just thought they would be wearing tin foil hats and not be an elected governor.
There's only one instance in U.S. history that I know of when mass numbers of law-abiding U.S. citizens were sent to internment camps for political reasons, and that was the shameful and indefensible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Since that time, federal and state governments have learned that it's far more effective to use more roundabout routes to oppress and target people for their beliefs and backgrounds, such as McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Nixon's infamous "Enemies List," and racial and religious profiling. You get all the benefits of trashing the rights of people who are different without all the nasty PR and huge expenses of gulaging "undesirables."
Well, there were the Cherokee. The tactics have certainly been refined, though.
Well, no, because the Cherokee and other Indians were never citizens or considered to be "real Americans," so they didn't have any rights to be taken away. Neither did black folks before the 14th Amendment, so they don't count either. But I do get the point.
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
"FM 3-39.40 is, essentially, a how-to guide for taking control of thousands or tens of thousands of people in a specific area, sorting them out afterward, and controlling them while in detention or in the midst of a resettlement.
For domestic extremists and radicals in search of evidence to support their forgone conclusion that the government is on the verge of declaring a police state, the field manual is a rhetorical gold mine even if it didnt specifically discuss how to apply these techniques to American citizens on U.S. soil. "
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
Hypothetical Question.
A major war breaks out somewhere on the planet. Terrorist attacks everywhere on our soil. 1000s of people are dying in every state. We know what "group" of people are responsible, there is no doubt who they are.
Would you support any type of confinement?
As an aside to the internment of American Japanese. Not a single Japanese American was ever accused of being a traitor during the whole war. The US Japanese military divisions during WWll, in Europe, were some of the most heroic and highly decorated soldiers we had.
As an aside to the internment of American Japanese. Not a single Japanese American was ever accused of being a traitor during the whole war. The US Japanese military divisions during WWll, in Europe, were some of the most heroic and highly decorated soldiers we had.
Wrong as usual. On the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, the FBI arrested 737 Japanese Americans. Four days later, an additional 1,370 had been detained. In February 1942, 2,192 Japanese Americans had been arrested as "dangerous enemy aliens."
At least the FBI did these people the courtesy of accusing them of being traitors, even if none of them were ever convicted, let alone went to trial. The other 127,000 Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes--including George Takei of Star Trek fame--and put in the camps, losing their homes and businesses in the process and never receiving compensation, were guilty of nothing more than being of Japanese ancestry. That so many of their children, in spite of the terrible injustice done against them and their parents, went on to valiantly fight for the U.S. in WW II, is a tribute to their patriotism and love of country.
Yet, somehow, the FBI failed to place ten millions of Italian and German Americans in internment camps. I wonder why?
As an aside to the internment of American Japanese. Not a single Japanese American was ever accused of being a traitor during the whole war. The US Japanese military divisions during WWll, in Europe, were some of the most heroic and highly decorated soldiers we had.
Wrong as usual. On the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, the FBI arrested 737 Japanese Americans. Four days later, an additional 1,370 had been detained. In February 1942, 2,192 Japanese Americans had been arrested as "dangerous enemy aliens."
At least the FBI did these people the courtesy of accusing them of being traitors, even if none of them were ever convicted, let alone went to trial. The other 127,000 Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes--including George Takei of Star Trek fame--and put in the camps, losing their homes and businesses in the process and never receiving compensation, were guilty of nothing more than being of Japanese ancestry. That so many of their children, in spite of the terrible injustice done against them and their parents, went on to valiantly fight for the U.S. in WW II, is a tribute to their patriotism and love of country.
Yet, somehow, the FBI failed to place ten millions of Italian and German Americans in internment camps. I wonder why?
"Between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. government forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes, farms, schools, jobs and businesses, in violation of their constitutional civil rights and liberties. After the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States to entered World War II. Years of anti-Japanese prejudice erupted into hate and suspicion. All people of Japanese descent were looked upon as capable of sabotage, and the success of the attack was assumed to be the result of espionage by Japanese Americans living in Hawaii and on the West Coast.
On the West Coast, a hysteria of fear against Japanese Americans as "the Fifth Column" and "the enemy within" was created by inflammatory journalism, pressure groups, politicians, and the U.S. Army. A profound suspicion of Japanese Americans quickly led to cries for their expulsion. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which called for the exclusion and internment of all Japanese Americans from the West Coast--where the majority of Japanese Americans lived, outside of Hawaii.
The exclusion and incarceration of Japanese Americans began in March 1942. The War Relocation Authority, or WRA, was established to administer the camps. During the first phase, internees were transported on trains and busses under military guard to the hastily prepared temporary detention centers.
Twelve temporary detention centers were in California and one was in Oregon. They were set up on race tracks, fairgrounds, or livestock pavilions. Detainees were housed in livestock stalls or windowless shacks that were crowded and lacked sufficient ventilation, electricity, and sanitation facilities. Food was often spoiled. There was a shortage of food and medicine.
The second phase began midsummer and involved moving approximately 500 deportees daily from the temporary detention centers to permanent concentration camps. These camps were located in remote, uninhabitable areas. In the desert camps, daytime temperatures often reached 100 degrees or more. Sub-zero winters were common in the northern camps.
Japanese Americans filed lawsuits to stop the mass incarceration, but the wartime courts supported the hysteria. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hirabayashi v U.S., Yasui v U.S. , and Korematsu v U.S. that the denial of civil liberties based on race and national origin were legal. In a later, contradictory ruling in Endo v
U.S., the Supreme Court decided that a loyal citizen could not be detained, but this did not stop the internment.
The internment camps were surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers. Armed guards patrolled the perimeter and were instructed to shoot anyone attempting to leave. The barracks consisted of tar paper over two-by-sixes and no insulation. Many families were assigned to one barracks and lived together with no privacy. Meals were taken communally in mess halls and required a long wait in line. A demonstration in Manzanar over the theft of food by personnel led to violence in which two died and many were injured. The attempt at screening for loyalty and registering inmates for military induction with the Army's questionnaire "Application for Leave Clearance," was conducted in a manner fraught with such confusion and distrust that violence broke out at both California camps.
Through the relocation program the Japanese Americans suffered greatly. They first endured the shock of realizing they were not being sent to resettlement communities, as many had been led to believe, but to prison. They lost their homes and businesses. Their educations and careers were interrupted and their possessions lost. Many lost sons who fought for the country that imprisoned their parents. They suffered the loss of faith in the government and the humiliation of being confined as traitors in their own country.
Many young Japanese American men fought for the United States while their families were imprisoned. The highly decorated, all-Japanese American 100th Battalion /442nd Regimental Combat Team that fought in Italy is one example of this irony. Other Japanese Americans served as translators as well as ordinary soldiers in the Pacific theater.
Throughout the course of World War II, not a single incident of espionage or treason was found to be committed by Japanese Americans. The difficulty of committing treason while incarcerated cannot alone explain this absence of wrongdoing; Japanese Americans living in Hawaii were spared relocation because of the logistical difficulty of transporting a third of the state's population to the mainland. With their numbers exceeding the entire Japanese population on the mainland, Japanese Americans in Hawaii proved an essential part of the state's labor force and defense.
On December 17, 1944, President Roosevelt announced the end of the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast, thus allowing the return home of the internees. Relocation after incarceration was difficult, especially since prejudice still ran high in the West Coast. Many Issei (first generation Japanese Americans) never regained their losses, living out their lives in poverty and poor health.
On July 31, 1980 to establish the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to investigate the incarceration of Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens during World War II. The Commission concluded: "the promulgation of Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions which followed from it-detention, ending detention, and ending exclusion-were not driven by analysis of military conditions. The broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.",br>
In October 1983, in response to a petition for a writ of error coram nobis by Fred Korematsu, the Federal District Court of San Francisco reversed his 1942 conviction and rules that the internment was not justified.
On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provides for an apology and redress to the internees still living. Nearly half of those who had been imprisoned died before the bill was signed. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 also established The Civil Liberties Public Education Fund whose purpose is "to sponsor research and public educational activities and to publish and distribute the hearings, findings, and recommendations of the CWRIC so that the events surrounding the exclusion, forced removal and internment of civilians and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry will be remembered, and so that the causes and circumstances of this and similar events may be illuminated and understood."
As an aside to the internment of American Japanese. Not a single Japanese American was ever accused of being a traitor during the whole war. The US Japanese military divisions during WWll, in Europe, were some of the most heroic and highly decorated soldiers we had.
The day of the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, a blanket presidential warrant authorized by U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle allowed the FBI arrest a predetermined number of "dangerous enemy aliens," including German, Italian, and Japanese nationals. An astonishing 737 Japanese Americans were arrested by the end of the day. By December 11, the FBI detained an additional 1,370 Japanese Americans classified as "dangerous enemy aliens....On January 28, the California State Personnel Board voted to bar all "descendants of natives with whom the United States [is] at war" from all civil service positions -- but the act was enforced only against Japanese Americans. By February 16, 2,192 Japanese Americans were under arrest by the FBI."
Eulogy remarked: "I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in."
I responded with 3 questions:
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
We've been chewing on the first question. How about the next ones?
Whether a guy says "I believe" or "I can't believe", either way, isn't he shackling his mind with faith, rather than opening his eyes to evidence?
What did the feds have in mind to do when they bought a billion hollow points?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming ...
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Eulogy remarked: "I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in."
I responded with 3 questions:
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
We've been chewing on the first question. How about the next ones?
Whether a guy says "I believe" or "I can't believe", either way, isn't he shackling his mind with faith, rather than opening his eyes to evidence?
What did the feds have in mind to do when they bought a billion hollow points?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming ...
There is no evidence that the federal government is planing to intern millions of Americans. I'm not blindly allowing my "faith" in something to cloud my judgement. And a large bulk ammo purchase probably isn't a rare or unusual purchase. It seems strange that these internment camps are now becoming death camps.
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
"FM 3-39.40 is, essentially, a how-to guide for taking control of thousands or tens of thousands of people in a specific area, sorting them out afterward, and controlling them while in detention or in the midst of a resettlement.
For domestic extremists and radicals in search of evidence to support their forgone conclusion that the government is on the verge of declaring a police state, the field manual is a rhetorical gold mine even if it didnt specifically discuss how to apply these techniques to American citizens on U.S. soil. "
The above has been in effect in one form or another since (I believe the 1930s), it ain't nothin new. But it does exist.
Hypothetical Question.
A major war breaks out somewhere on the planet. Terrorist attacks everywhere on our soil. 1000s of people are dying in every state. We know what "group" of people are responsible, there is no doubt who they are.
Would you support any type of confinement?
We had two of them here in Utah back then. One in orem and one out near Delta. There is a museum for the one in Delta. The one in Orem is now a Jr high as well as a elementary school. It has a commemorative plaque now talking about it.
I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in.
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
"FM 3-39.40 is, essentially, a how-to guide for taking control of thousands or tens of thousands of people in a specific area, sorting them out afterward, and controlling them while in detention or in the midst of a resettlement.
For domestic extremists and radicals in search of evidence to support their forgone conclusion that the government is on the verge of declaring a police state, the field manual is a rhetorical gold mine even if it didnt specifically discuss how to apply these techniques to American citizens on U.S. soil. "
The above has been in effect in one form or another since (I believe the 1930s), it ain't nothin new. But it does exist.
Hypothetical Question.
A major war breaks out somewhere on the planet. Terrorist attacks everywhere on our soil. 1000s of people are dying in every state. We know what "group" of people are responsible, there is no doubt who they are.
Would you support any type of confinement?
No Takers?
Oh come on. There has to be someone with an honest opinion. Forget PC and say what is in your hearts. Just answer YES or NO
I wouldn't. You can say that you know what "group" is responsible, but unless it is specific memeber of the group and not a blanket incarceration of a specific race or religious group it won't work. Terrorist are not a specific group of people, they are created through personal circumstances.
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
I wouldn't. You can say that you know what "group" is responsible, but unless it is specific memeber of the group and not a blanket incarceration of a specific race or religious group it won't work. Terrorist are not a specific group of people, they are created through personal circumstances.
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
+1.
By far, the most sensible comment made on this particular topic. And that it's coming from someone who was "over there" and actually witnessed in reality a situation that the OP is posing hypothetically, gives your comment added credibility. That you served your country with honor, even if you didn't necessarily totally support the political reasons for which the war was waged, is a further credit to you.
I wouldn't. You can say that you know what "group" is responsible, but unless it is specific memeber of the group and not a blanket incarceration of a specific race or religious group it won't work. Terrorist are not a specific group of people, they are created through personal circumstances.
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
+1.
By far, the most sensible comment made on this particular topic. And that it's coming from someone who was "over there" and actually witnessed in reality a situation that the OP is posing hypothetically, gives your comment added credibility. That you served your country with honor, even if you didn't necessarily totally support the political reasons for which the war was waged, is a further credit to you.
LOL I see what you did there JB. But hey, I lean to the right, so, there's no way I could possibly comprehend subtleties, is there? Haha.
I wouldn't. You can say that you know what "group" is responsible, but unless it is specific memeber of the group and not a blanket incarceration of a specific race or religious group it won't work. Terrorist are not a specific group of people, they are created through personal circumstances.
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
+1.
By far, the most sensible comment made on this particular topic. And that it's coming from someone who was "over there" and actually witnessed in reality a situation that the OP is posing hypothetically, gives your comment added credibility. That you served your country with honor, even if you didn't necessarily totally support the political reasons for which the war was waged, is a further credit to you.
LOL I see what you did there JB. But hey, I lean to the right, so, there's no way I could possibly comprehend subtleties, is there? Haha.
Umm, BL, maybe I'm a bit thick here, as some of us on the left often are, but can you explain to me what kind of wool I was pulling over your eyes when all I thought was doing was supporting what EY was saying?
... diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
Sounds like something a Miss America contestant would say during the interview.
"Tiffany, how would you use your platform as Miss America to bring peace to the Middle East?"
"... diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region."
Some things cannot be talked out. Arabs, for example.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
... diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
Sounds like something a Miss America contestant would say during the interview.
"Tiffany, how would you use your platform as Miss America to bring peace to the Middle East?"
"... diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region."
Some things cannot be talked out. Arabs, for example.
I like how you dismissed my argument by attacking me, and then made a blanket assertion about a group of people being unreasonable. Two fallacies for one argument.
I wouldn't. You can say that you know what "group" is responsible, but unless it is specific memeber of the group and not a blanket incarceration of a specific race or religious group it won't work. Terrorist are not a specific group of people, they are created through personal circumstances.
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
+1.
By far, the most sensible comment made on this particular topic. And that it's coming from someone who was "over there" and actually witnessed in reality a situation that the OP is posing hypothetically, gives your comment added credibility. That you served your country with honor, even if you didn't necessarily totally support the political reasons for which the war was waged, is a further credit to you.
LOL I see what you did there JB. But hey, I lean to the right, so, there's no way I could possibly comprehend subtleties, is there? Haha.
Umm, BL, maybe I'm a bit thick here, as some of us on the left often are, but can you explain to me what kind of wool I was pulling over your eyes when all I thought was doing was supporting what EY was saying?
Can't prove it but, I perceived it, so,..... I am hinting that in your support of EY, you are simultaneously validating EY's cred while invalidating JD's. I was amused at my perception so, I thought I'd point it out. Guess I was wrong. Right? Still gonna wink at you over it. LOL
I wouldn't. You can say that you know what "group" is responsible, but unless it is specific memeber of the group and not a blanket incarceration of a specific race or religious group it won't work. Terrorist are not a specific group of people, they are created through personal circumstances.
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
+1.
By far, the most sensible comment made on this particular topic. And that it's coming from someone who was "over there" and actually witnessed in reality a situation that the OP is posing hypothetically, gives your comment added credibility. That you served your country with honor, even if you didn't necessarily totally support the political reasons for which the war was waged, is a further credit to you.
LOL I see what you did there JB. But hey, I lean to the right, so, there's no way I could possibly comprehend subtleties, is there? Haha.
Umm, BL, maybe I'm a bit thick here, as some of us on the left often are, but can you explain to me what kind of wool I was pulling over your eyes when all I thought was doing was supporting what EY was saying?
Can't prove it but, I perceived it, so,..... I am hinting that in your support of EY, you are simultaneously validating EY's cred while invalidating JD's. I was amused at my perception so, I thought I'd point it out. Guess I was wrong. Right? Still gonna wink at you over it. LOL
Moi?????? Invalidating JD's opinion? Never! He's like a brother to me.
But, no, I wasn't invalidating JD's opinion or credibility because he was raising a "what if" scenario--an act that doesn't require credibility. However, expressing opinions in response to a "what if" scenario in a manner that carries gravitas does require some level of credibility on the part of the respondent--whether one agrees with the answer or not. One may not agree with EY's answer, but I would submit that his military experience gives him a level of relevant "real world" experience that made his answer credible--far more than mine would be. Now, if another foreign war veteran expressed the opposite POV as EY I'd grant that that veteran had just as much "real world" credibility, even if I disagreed with the opinion.
Think we're going to have a woman on the 20 dollar bill? It wouldn't really bother me. I mean, there's already a woman on the one dollar coin. I guess it would be an adjustment no longer seeing Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. Times they are a changing.
The survey was conducted by the advocacy group Women on 20s, which is pushing to have a woman's face on U.S. paper currency.
The organization sent President Obama a petition Tuesday asking him to push for the change.
The campaign has drawn a lot of attention. More than 600,000 people
have cast votes in the online poll in the past ten weeks, including
celebrities like Susan Sarandon and Ellen DeGeneres.
Harriet
Tubman, an abolitionist who led slaves to freedom on the Underground
Railroad, would replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.
Tubman beat out a list of 15 candidates, including former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, civil rights activist Rosa Parks, and Native American chief Wilma Mankiller.
But only the Treasury Department has the authority to make changes to U.S. currency, and its official plans say that the $10 bill is the next one for a redesign, not the $20.
The campaign inspired U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New
Hampshire, to introduce legislation that would instruct the Treasury to
put a woman on the $20 bill. There hasn't been any vote on the bill.
Comments
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming
I didn't see the fight, but what shocks me is the fact that millions of people paid a hundred dollars to watch this and both fighters walked away with over $100 million each for one night's work, not to mention the additional hundreds of millions earned by the sleazy group of promoters and PPV operators and cable companies. The lefty in me says:
1. If all the people had given that $100 to charity instead of to cable promoters to view a lackluster fight featuring two 30+ years olds, that would be seven hundred million dollars that could do a whole lot of good in the world other than making two multi-millionaire fighters and a bunch of sleazy cable promoters even richer than they are. Hell, if instead of giving it to charity these same people had spent this $100 buying stuff in locally owned stores it would have done far more good for the economy than giving to these people.
2. Anyone who paid $100 for this fight and still rails and moans about their "tax burden" is speaking to dead air.
3. If there's any consolation, hopefully these two fighters are Americans and will have to pay 35% or more of their winning in taxes, although I'm sure they'll have sleazy accountants and lawyers who will have this money placed in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes at all.
1. Private money would be better off with the government. (After all, they will spend it fairly, wisely and effectively with none wasted.)
2. Private citizens appropriately don't deserve a voice on tax matters if they buy any non-essential products.
3. Wouldn't it be great if a larger percentage of private citizen's money could belong to the government? (The ones who earned it don't deserve it. They are all greedy cheaters, at least those who make enough money to actually pay taxes and support the federal government.)
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
There's only one instance in U.S. history that I know of when mass numbers of law-abiding U.S. citizens were sent to internment camps for political reasons, and that was the shameful and indefensible internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Since that time, federal and state governments have learned that it's far more effective to use more roundabout routes to oppress and target people for their beliefs and backgrounds, such as McCarthyism, Jim Crow, Nixon's infamous "Enemies List," and racial and religious profiling. You get all the benefits of trashing the rights of people who are different without all the nasty PR and huge expenses of gulaging "undesirables."
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Well, no, because the Cherokee and other Indians were never citizens or considered to be "real Americans," so they didn't have any rights to be taken away. Neither did black folks before the 14th Amendment, so they don't count either. But I do get the point.
"FM 3-39.40 is, essentially, a how-to guide for taking control of thousands or tens of thousands of people in a specific area, sorting them out afterward, and controlling them while in detention or in the midst of a resettlement.
For domestic extremists and radicals in search of evidence to support their forgone conclusion that the government is on the verge of declaring a police state, the field manual is a rhetorical gold mine even if it didnt specifically discuss how to apply these techniques to American citizens on U.S. soil. "
More here....http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/17/did-you-hear-the-one-about-u-s-internment-camps/
A major war breaks out somewhere on the planet. Terrorist attacks everywhere on our soil. 1000s of people are dying in every state. We know what "group" of people are responsible, there is no doubt who they are.
Would you support any type of confinement?
As an aside to the internment of American Japanese. Not a single Japanese American was ever accused of being a traitor during the whole war. The US Japanese military divisions during WWll, in Europe, were some of the most heroic and highly decorated soldiers we had.
Wrong as usual. On the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, the FBI arrested 737 Japanese Americans. Four days later, an additional 1,370 had been detained. In February 1942, 2,192 Japanese Americans had been arrested as "dangerous enemy aliens."
At least the FBI did these people the courtesy of accusing them of being traitors, even if none of them were ever convicted, let alone went to trial. The other 127,000 Japanese Americans who were forcibly removed from their homes--including George Takei of Star Trek fame--and put in the camps, losing their homes and businesses in the process and never receiving compensation, were guilty of nothing more than being of Japanese ancestry. That so many of their children, in spite of the terrible injustice done against them and their parents, went on to valiantly fight for the U.S. in WW II, is a tribute to their patriotism and love of country.
Yet, somehow, the FBI failed to place ten millions of Italian and German Americans in internment camps. I wonder why?
"Between 1942 and 1945, the U.S. government forced more than 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes, farms, schools, jobs and businesses, in violation of their constitutional civil rights and liberties. After the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States to entered World War II. Years of anti-Japanese prejudice erupted into hate and suspicion. All people of Japanese descent were looked upon as capable of sabotage, and the success of the attack was assumed to be the result of espionage by Japanese Americans living in Hawaii and on the West Coast.
On the West Coast, a hysteria of fear against Japanese Americans as "the Fifth Column" and "the enemy within" was created by inflammatory journalism, pressure groups, politicians, and the U.S. Army. A profound suspicion of Japanese Americans quickly led to cries for their expulsion. On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which called for the exclusion and internment of all Japanese Americans from the West Coast--where the majority of Japanese Americans lived, outside of Hawaii.
The exclusion and incarceration of Japanese Americans began in March 1942. The War Relocation Authority, or WRA, was established to administer the camps. During the first phase, internees were transported on trains and busses under military guard to the hastily prepared temporary detention centers.
Twelve temporary detention centers were in California and one was in Oregon. They were set up on race tracks, fairgrounds, or livestock pavilions. Detainees were housed in livestock stalls or windowless shacks that were crowded and lacked sufficient ventilation, electricity, and sanitation facilities. Food was often spoiled. There was a shortage of food and medicine.
The second phase began midsummer and involved moving approximately 500 deportees daily from the temporary detention centers to permanent concentration camps. These camps were located in remote, uninhabitable areas. In the desert camps, daytime temperatures often reached 100 degrees or more. Sub-zero winters were common in the northern camps.
Japanese Americans filed lawsuits to stop the mass incarceration, but the wartime courts supported the hysteria. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hirabayashi v U.S., Yasui v U.S. , and Korematsu v U.S. that the denial of civil liberties based on race and national origin were legal. In a later, contradictory ruling in Endo v
U.S., the Supreme Court decided that a loyal citizen could not be detained, but this did not stop the internment.
The internment camps were surrounded by barbed wire and guard towers. Armed guards patrolled the perimeter and were instructed to shoot anyone attempting to leave. The barracks consisted of tar paper over two-by-sixes and no insulation. Many families were assigned to one barracks and lived together with no privacy. Meals were taken communally in mess halls and required a long wait in line. A demonstration in Manzanar over the theft of food by personnel led to violence in which two died and many were injured. The attempt at screening for loyalty and registering inmates for military induction with the Army's questionnaire "Application for Leave Clearance," was conducted in a manner fraught with such confusion and distrust that violence broke out at both California camps.
Through the relocation program the Japanese Americans suffered greatly. They first endured the shock of realizing they were not being sent to resettlement communities, as many had been led to believe, but to prison. They lost their homes and businesses. Their educations and careers were interrupted and their possessions lost. Many lost sons who fought for the country that imprisoned their parents. They suffered the loss of faith in the government and the humiliation of being confined as traitors in their own country.
Many young Japanese American men fought for the United States while their families were imprisoned. The highly decorated, all-Japanese American 100th Battalion /442nd Regimental Combat Team that fought in Italy is one example of this irony. Other Japanese Americans served as translators as well as ordinary soldiers in the Pacific theater.
Throughout the course of World War II, not a single incident of espionage or treason was found to be committed by Japanese Americans. The difficulty of committing treason while incarcerated cannot alone explain this absence of wrongdoing; Japanese Americans living in Hawaii were spared relocation because of the logistical difficulty of transporting a third of the state's population to the mainland. With their numbers exceeding the entire Japanese population on the mainland, Japanese Americans in Hawaii proved an essential part of the state's labor force and defense.
On December 17, 1944, President Roosevelt announced the end of the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast, thus allowing the return home of the internees. Relocation after incarceration was difficult, especially since prejudice still ran high in the West Coast. Many Issei (first generation Japanese Americans) never regained their losses, living out their lives in poverty and poor health.
On July 31, 1980 to establish the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to investigate the incarceration of Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens during World War II. The Commission concluded: "the promulgation of Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions which followed from it-detention, ending detention, and ending exclusion-were not driven by analysis of military conditions. The broad historical causes which shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.",br>
In October 1983, in response to a petition for a writ of error coram nobis by Fred Korematsu, the Federal District Court of San Francisco reversed his 1942 conviction and rules that the internment was not justified.
On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provides for an apology and redress to the internees still living. Nearly half of those who had been imprisoned died before the bill was signed. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 also established The Civil Liberties Public Education Fund whose purpose is "to sponsor research and public educational activities and to publish and distribute the hearings, findings, and recommendations of the CWRIC so that the events surrounding the exclusion, forced removal and internment of civilians and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry will be remembered, and so that the causes and circumstances of this and similar events may be illuminated and understood."
The day of the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, a blanket presidential warrant authorized by U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle allowed the FBI arrest a predetermined number of "dangerous enemy aliens," including German, Italian, and Japanese nationals. An astonishing 737 Japanese Americans were arrested by the end of the day. By December 11, the FBI detained an additional 1,370 Japanese Americans classified as "dangerous enemy aliens....On January 28, the California State Personnel Board voted to bar all "descendants of natives with whom the United States [is] at war" from all civil service positions -- but the act was enforced only against Japanese Americans. By February 16, 2,192 Japanese Americans were under arrest by the FBI."
Source: http://www.chicora.org/Japanese-Americans.html
Eulogy remarked: "I cant believe that people could possibly believe that the federal government would create camps to put political prisoners in."
I responded with 3 questions:
1) Haven't we created them before?
2) Aren't "I believe" and "I can't believe" both faith based?
3) So why did the feds buy a billion hollow points then?
We've been chewing on the first question. How about the next ones?
Whether a guy says "I believe" or "I can't believe", either way, isn't he shackling his mind with faith, rather than opening his eyes to evidence?
What did the feds have in mind to do when they bought a billion hollow points?
... and now back to your regular trollgramming ...
The above has been in effect in one form or another since (I believe the 1930s), it ain't nothin new. But it does exist.
Hypothetical Question. A major war breaks out somewhere on the planet. Terrorist attacks everywhere on our soil. 1000s of people are dying in every state. We know what "group" of people are responsible, there is no doubt who they are. Would you support any type of confinement?
No Takers?
http://www.topazmuseum.org/
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/orem/historians-museum-chronicle-story-of-wwii-pow-camp-in-orem/article_359b9979-cc1e-5cd7-8fba-c68089502c8a.html (this article is 5 years old)
-Jay
Oh come on. There has to be someone with an honest opinion. Forget PC and say what is in your hearts. Just answer YES or NO
After engaging in a firefight in Iraq some of the other marines I was with got angry at the "terrorists" shooting at us. I told them I understood what they were doing and I would be doing the same thing they were if our roles were reversed. If someone invaded America and started rolling down the streets in tanks, kicking in doors to preform warrant less searches, and justified what they were doing by saying the American way of life was evil I would pick up a gun and fight back.
Those are circumstances I think that a lot of middle eastern people and Muslims are facing, a perceived attack on their cultural norms and religious belief. You cannot solve problems by locking them away, look at our own crime rates and prison populations. There is an answer to this, I don't know what it is, but it if I had to venture a guess it would probably involve diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region.
+1.
By far, the most sensible comment made on this particular topic. And that it's coming from someone who was "over there" and actually witnessed in reality a situation that the OP is posing hypothetically, gives your comment added credibility. That you served your country with honor, even if you didn't necessarily totally support the political reasons for which the war was waged, is a further credit to you.
Umm, BL, maybe I'm a bit thick here, as some of us on the left often are, but can you explain to me what kind of wool I was pulling over your eyes when all I thought was doing was supporting what EY was saying?
"Tiffany, how would you use your platform as Miss America to bring peace to the Middle East?"
"... diplomatic relations and creating cooperation in the region."
Some things cannot be talked out. Arabs, for example.
Moi?????? Invalidating JD's opinion? Never! He's like a brother to me.
But, no, I wasn't invalidating JD's opinion or credibility because he was raising a "what if" scenario--an act that doesn't require credibility. However, expressing opinions in response to a "what if" scenario in a manner that carries gravitas does require some level of credibility on the part of the respondent--whether one agrees with the answer or not. One may not agree with EY's answer, but I would submit that his military experience gives him a level of relevant "real world" experience that made his answer credible--far more than mine would be. Now, if another foreign war veteran expressed the opposite POV as EY I'd grant that that veteran had just as much "real world" credibility, even if I disagreed with the opinion.
Think we're going to have a woman on the 20 dollar bill? It wouldn't really bother me. I mean, there's already a woman on the one dollar coin. I guess it would be an adjustment no longer seeing Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. Times they are a changing.
The survey was conducted by the advocacy group Women on 20s, which is pushing to have a woman's face on U.S. paper currency.
The organization sent President Obama a petition Tuesday asking him to push for the change.
The campaign has drawn a lot of attention. More than 600,000 people have cast votes in the online poll in the past ten weeks, including celebrities like Susan Sarandon and Ellen DeGeneres.
Harriet Tubman, an abolitionist who led slaves to freedom on the Underground Railroad, would replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill.
Tubman beat out a list of 15 candidates, including former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, civil rights activist Rosa Parks, and Native American chief Wilma Mankiller.But only the Treasury Department has the authority to make changes to U.S. currency, and its official plans say that the $10 bill is the next one for a redesign, not the $20.
The campaign inspired U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, to introduce legislation that would instruct the Treasury to put a woman on the $20 bill. There hasn't been any vote on the bill.