DOD to support the Police
 

WHAT!?!:eek:
Good thing we can kick their ass with our assault rifles. :rolleyes:

Sam Alito will be so pleased...

DOD has always been able to assist law enforcement in a very limited way. There really is nothing new here. Unless you really believe that Obama, already a horrible socialist, is planning to take over the country he is already the elected leader of-with the Armed forces. Thereby becoming a horrible dictator as well.

Not even close to happening.

Given the militarization of your police, would many people even notice?

You know the story about the frog in slowly heated water?

Why are they trying to solve a problem that does not exist? When civilian resources need assistance, resources are assigned to the National Guard. And deployed by the state's Governor. Why are Federal troops required? Same resources need only be released to the Governor.

Or does the system break down when the enemy has breasts that exceed 155 mm?

They may notice with the coming drone strikes but then again if Uncle Sam blows up a few pedophiles first...

The boil seems pretty steady already.

There'll be unarmed drones for a while first. All is well. :chill:

I know this makes for interesting conversation. Seriosly. This is not somthing that is happening in this country. A lot of weird shit might be going down. I assure you military coup is not one of them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

Don't tell that to the tin-foilers!

Coup no, militarization of law enforcement continuing on same track.

I suppose most Dwellars know I support Obama.
That said, IMO yesterday's speech was probably the his best-to-date.

I did watch and listen to all except the first couple of minutes.
I expected him to build up to a justification for adopting the Bill in the OP.
But he did not.

Instead, he called for a reduction in the use of drones,
justification for draw down of troops from the middle east
closure of Gitmo, and most importantly, justification for a
final, formal, and legal end to the US "War on Terrorism".

There was point in his talk where he could easily have slipped
in his adoption of that Bill, but I think he went the other direction.

It goes without saying, I was much relieved.
It remains to be seen what actually comes out of the politics of Congress.

Did you mean to go
here?

Actually, my comments are applicable to both threads.

Back in the early 80's when the Olympics were in LA , i was stationed at Camp pendelton , we were on alert if things went sideways

As a National Guard unit? Or as a Federally deployed military police unit under Pentagon jurisdiction?

USMC 2/1 Weapons Company ,

Law enforcement officials and agents wear uniforms, carry weapons, are regimented and have a rank structure....they have always had a military character. I don't believe that law enforcement in the US as a whole or in part is being militarized in an effort to take over the country.

The bastids have already taken over, this is just about making sure the plebs don't get uppity.

I'm not sure about the quality and impartiality of this source, but ..

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16521...-state-consent

argues that there are significant changes here. IMHO, the most serious, is that the military no longer need to wait for the police to call for help, but can act on their own initiative. The conditions allowing this are very loosely and vaguely defined.

Ironically enough, back to the levels under former president Bush. :eyebrow:
Again more ideological with no actual policy directive.
Been wanting that for over 5 years ... still hasn't happened, yet with all that is going on still no answers. FAIL.
.. .. .. justification. Hmm... Yay?

W0W .. Really Lamp? You still can't find any fault with O, and just keep on blaming the other team. smh.

Hi Classic... glad to see you're back.

My posting was...
Did I misquote any of the issues in his speech ?
Did I omit any important issues in his speech ?
Does it remain to be seen what will come out of the Congress ?

I read your post, no need to repost.

All is well, nothing to see here. these are not distractions from the scandals plaguing this administration. These have nothing to do with the precedent set again the media.

Keep those Rose colored glasses firmly in place and the Kool-Aid well chilled.

I thought you were referring to OP of this thread and Obama's speech on 5/23.

Maybe you could repy to my questions about those.

But, if you were just looking for criticism of Obama,
you can find one of mine here... immediately following your posting
at http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php...782#post799782
and in post 86 and 88 and 90 of that same thread.

Never mind... as you were.

This is why I don't post here much anymore.
I ask for the answer to 2+3; and the response is lightbulb.

OK, here are your 2+3

1) Obama followed through on the Bush plan to remove ALL combat troops from Iraq
Reuters
12/18/11
Last U.S. troops leave Iraq, ending war2) Obama established in2009 and re-affirmed and re-affirmed (2013) in his speech 5/23/13
his commitment to removal of troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Obama being blocked by Congress was widely reported,
but do you trust the Washington Times ?

Washinton Times
12/8/10

President Obama’s campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba.

I support both of Obama's policies above, and believe he was blocked by Congress on several instances.
I would have liked things to have moved faster than it has,
but it would be disingenuous to deny that Congress played no roll in slowing things down.


Anything else ?

nope, so far so good. Just keep the Kool-Aid well stocked.

Ummmm.... Adak has been doing this for us, but we haven't heard much from him lately.
Maybe because Bengazi sort of ran out of steam for McCain and Graham ;)

Classic, if you want a more in depth discussion of these various "scandals",
why not start a new thread on each (or the ones) are particularly of concern to you ?

I am having more in depth discussions elsewhere. I was lamenting that the cellar used to be better at this than any alternative when people were not so polarized. Now there aren't any from the other side. Adak is as much an extremist as you and doesn't come close to what I am talking about.

Here ya go Lamp... here is another perspective of the President's speech.

"The clear purpose of Obama's speech was to comfort progressives who are growing progressively more uncomfortable with his extreme secrecy, wars on press freedom, seemingly endless militarism and the like. For the most part, their discomfort is far more about the image being created of the politician they believed was unique and even transcendent than it is any substantive opposition to his policies. No progressive wants to believe that they placed such great trust and adoration in a political figure who is now being depicted as some sort of warped progeny of Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. That creates internal discomfort and even shame. This speech was designed to allow progressives once again to see Barack Obama as they have always wanted to see him, his policies notwithstanding: as a deeply thoughtful, moral, complex leader who is doing his level best, despite often insurmountable obstacles, to bring about all those Good Things that progressives thought they would be getting when they empowered him."

By whom? It makes a difference you know.

I know there are other perspectives, and I read through your entire link.
I would add one word to your sentence:
Like many TV movies that run for an hour-and-a-half,
but could have been better told in 30 minutes,
I think this article is covered fully in the last paragraph:

I disagree with his final summation.
... I doubt many people (including liberals or progressives or extremists like me)
are cheering for those changes as though they had already occurred or are guaranteed...

But even this author recognizes that Obama's call for an end to this country's
"Perpertual War on Terrorism" was close to a spectacular turning point.
Obama's identified the mechanism for this was repeal or revision of the AUMF.
(9/18/11 Congressional Resolution: "The Authorization for Use of Military Force" signed by GWB)
This is the domain of the Congress and it is incorrect to try
to say Obama's could make it happen if he really wanted to to.

It's the reason I said it remains to be seen "what will come out of Congress"

Be the change you want to see. I'd love for a sane conservative voice to be expressed, but they've mostly been weeded out of the political and media spheres, and now only retired senators seem to be willing to act sane. Adak may be an extremist, but he's mainstream as far as the Republican Party these days is concerned.

And, as an aside, if you want to see someone beating up on Obama every bit as much as he beat up on Bush, try Ted Rall.

Yeh ... NO.

I wish. But the non-Adaks are deferring towards the Adaks of the party, not the other way round.