Wal-Mart joins up with WHO????

[Andara Bledin]

(I do not recall hundreds of thousands of American citizens of GERMAN decent being herded into camps)

How do you tell, at a glance, the difference between someone of German descent and, say, someone of Polish descent? It was a shining example of xenophobia at it's finest.

^-.-^

[ditchdj]

Heh,

Read about the Bill "HR 645" that's being pushed through Congress. Here's the main highlights of it.....

ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure--

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

What does "appropriate needs" mean??? So basically Napolitano can do whatever the hell she wants to US in the event of a natural disaster or civil unrest.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h111-645

[Wingates_Hellsing]

@ Racket_Man: That people have gotten carried away before in no way means that they'll get carried away this time, if you can even call this a 'time'. I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that for every time the government or any organization, for that matter, started some unstoppable trend with a single, innocuous action there was also at least one if not dozens of times where the single, innocuous action lead to exactly nothing.

It "could" precede a massive infringement on basic rights, it also "could" not. It's certain that we should remain vigilant for the possibility of unconstitutional laws, but we should really have been doing that already. Either way, there's been no infringement at least on this count as it is, even if that were to change, it still isn't NOW. Why must everyone act as if the sky is falling every time someone in the government breathes on a keyboard?

Don't forget that while hyper vigilance is a bad thing so is the near-complete lack of vigilance. What about the girl who was assaulted and brutally stabbed to death in plain view? Is it not just as evil to allow bad things to happen because you fear the repercussions? Especially in this case where those repercussions are at best, immaterial?

As long as a position of power exists, it will be abused eventually, this is inescapable. Thing being that there will always be someone in a position of power, there's no stopping it. If we were to tear down our government and instigate anarchy then the person in power would just be the biggest/strongest/most ruthless, at least our leaders have some accountability, it may not be perfect, but since nothing is that's hardly a valid criticism.

@ditchdj:
You're behaving here as if the words "other appropriate needs" countermands the entirety of US Law and it just doesn't. First and foremost the HLS Secretary is still accountable to her superiors and if they decide that her decisions are erroneous, she can be fired. Additionally, not only is she still bound by all the laws which restrict her actions, of which there are plenty, this clause is really a necessity. The last thing we need is for something to come up that doesn't exactly fit the enumerated purposes and no one can do anything because of red tape.

For instance, should a disaster of any sort occur and the people in charge discover that there is a critical lack in, say, human transport vehicles, no one would be able to correct this were it not for the inclusion of that last clause. This is the exact sort of thing that plagued the relief efforts surrounding Katrina.

Speaking of Katrina, there are also, as I mentioned before, plenty of laws on the books restricting what any government entity could do even in the case of emergencies which usually lift most restrictions (whether we like it or not, personal freedom doesn't matter when there's bodies in the streets and utter chaos, the boots on the ground need to be able to do what they find necessary to save lives. Which is about the least bullshit thing in existence.) Such as the Katrina disarmament whereby some dickhead decided that they better confiscate the weapons of everyone when they had the most need of them. So a law was passed specifically preventing this, and it's not the only one.

[Dreamstalker]

That people have gotten carried away before in no way means that they'll get carried away this time .... It "could" precede a massive infringement on basic rights, it also "could" not.

But the possibility is still there (see the Stanford prison experiment). People are unpredictable, and some let power go to their heads and justify anything because/when there are no checks and balances.

Not so much of a problem when there's direct government oversight (one would hope...there have been instances where oversight didn't matter), but letting Joe Schmo decide what's suspicious is just asking for trouble.

[protege]

now ask all those Japanneese Americans from the WWII era what they thought of their "relocation" and forfeture of ALL of their property and "rights" (I do not recall hundreds of thousands of American citizens of GERMAN decent being herded into camps) just because they were of Japanneese decent.

Of course, the Germans also didn't bomb Pearl Harbor or participate in the Bataan Death March Still doesn't excuse them for their role in WWII. Yet, they get a free pass. For example, I took my grandmother out on Memorial Day some years back. We'd spent the day planting flowers on the family graves, and wanted a sandwich. I'd just walked into the restaurant, and not even 5 seconds later, I hear some old fool ranting about how dare I buy a Japanese car (I own a Toyota) because of what the "Japs did to our guys" and that buying such a vehicle made me "less of an American."

Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? As much as I would have wanted to tell him I own a British car as well--didn't the British once kill our troops?--I kept my mouth shut. If he wanted to be an asshole in public, who I was I to stop (or even help) him? Funny, how the guy didn't mention anything to the BMW-owning family that pulled in next to me about the choice of *their* vehicle.

Again, seriously? You're going to bust my balls, and not theirs? (I'm not trying to say that he should have said anything. Rather, I'm trying to understand *why* this mindset exists.) Didn't the Nazis do horrible things to people (and not just Americans either) about the same time that the Japanese did? With that said, why is it that nobody calls German-built people "Krauts," or even refers to their vehicles as "Kraut-burners?" I guess it's because it's difficult to tell one's "German-ness" by looking at them. It's far easier to demonize an entire race because of their facial features

Edit: Thought I'd throw this in here too. Americans with German-sounding last names weren't immune to the backlash during and after WWII. My own family's name is *Norwegian,* (loosely translated, it means "Eastern House") yet my grandparents got plenty of flak over it. They were harassed and people occasionally spat at them.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

But the possibility is still there (see the Stanford prison experiment). People are unpredictable, and some let power go to their heads and justify anything because/when there are no checks and balances.

Not so much of a problem when there's direct government oversight (one would hope...there have been instances where oversight didn't matter), but letting Joe Schmo decide what's suspicious is just asking for trouble.

Except that Joe Schmo isn't being given any power to decide what's suspicious. There's nothing in here that says "All reports must be treated like felonies" or that all reports must be answered with a call to the police or whatever.

Nothing's changed here, it's still up to the person who receives the report to decide whether or not it's suspicious and what to do from there same as it was before.

[ditchdj]

Wingates, the reason why I think differently than you is because of the arrogant attitude of our government. They have this attitude of "Well we dont have to answer to YOU! We can do whatever the hell we want!" If you don't believe me watch "Conspiracy Theory". You try to ask pretty much any government official about anything you can't get any answers from them! Or better yet.....watch this video about a guy asking a Phoenix cops why he's strutting around the airport carrying a machine gun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cD2BCBaNaM

Uh excuse me???? Uhhhhh.....who pays THEIR salary. I thought that, if you're paying out the money, that makes YOU the boss! At least, it's that way with everything else, right???? But they have this attitude like it's the other way around. WE answer to THEM!

At your place of work, what would happen if the workers stood up to the bosses and decided that THEY were gonna run the company, set the hours, do the work they way THEY dictate. And if the bosses confronted the workers about it the workers would refuse to comment and even have the cops haul them away if they didnt back off????

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, sure this plan looks good on paper. DHS is gonna keep us safe and take care of us. But with today's general government mindset that I just mentioned, I'm not buying it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Wingates, the reason why I think differently than you is because of the arrogant attitude of our government. They have this attitude of "Well we dont have to answer to YOU! We can do whatever the hell we want!" If you don't believe me watch "Conspiracy Theory". You try to ask pretty much any government official about anything you can't get any answers from them! Or better yet.....watch this video about a guy asking a Phoenix cops why he's strutting around the airport carrying a machine gun!

It's pretty easy to figure out why politicians and government employees don't like answering questions, it's a no win situation. If they do answer it'll either get nitpicked to death and twisted beyond recognition like on shows such as "Conspiracy Theory" and if the answer is exactly what you want, you just wouldn't believe them anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, given the choice, might as well save effort for important stuff.

Although this is probably lost on anyone who takes shows like "Conspiracy Theory" seriously, there are plenty of ways to get any questions you have answered. I've found that it's as simple as calling their office and if the person who answers can't help you they can get you an appointment, and in the rare circumstance that they can't help you either, they can get you an appointment with their boss and so on and so forth. It's really not so much that the system's broken as much as it is that some people are trying to skip it entirely and harass low-level employees, record the result, and post it online. Not the way cooperation is usually won, I know it's boring, but it's there for a reason and a little patience would do you good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cD2BCBaNaM

First of all, the reason he has an assault rifle (a damned cool one at that) is because A) a pistol is what you use to fight your way to a rifle, this guy is just really well prepared and B) because it intimidates the bad guys, if you aren't a bad guy why are you intimidated? What reason do you have to believe that this cop will spontaneously decide that your ass needs to die and what makes you think he needs a weapon to make that happen?

Also, the cop in that video told you exactly why he blew that guy off in the first few seconds when he said "why are you taping me?". In the experience of any public servant the likelihood that someone will listen to what you have to say is viciously killed the moment a video camera appears, especially when it's the first thing they see when approached by some random off the street.

Uh excuse me???? Uhhhhh.....who pays THEIR salary. I thought that, if you're paying out the money, that makes YOU the boss! At least, it's that way with everything else, right???? But they have this attitude like it's the other way around. WE answer to THEM!

I shall answer your questions in order: No I won't, the public at large, it doesn't make you the boss, it's not that way with anything else and yes, you do.

You see, this cop's salary is payed by the public at large so any one person is only fractionally responsible for paying and even so that's paid to the state which then erects a chain of command and division of labor that dispenses services and pays it's employees for those services. There are so many degrees of separation between you and them when it comes to money that it does not matter in the slightest, they are paid by the state to do what their boss tells them to, if you don't like it, elect a different boss, that's what democracy is for. Or you could report them to their superiors and take it from there. There's plenty of valid ways to express your disagreements and seek to have them administered but none of them start with harassing someone on camera.

At your place of work, what would happen if the workers stood up to the bosses and decided that THEY were gonna run the company, set the hours, do the work they way THEY dictate. And if the bosses confronted the workers about it the workers would refuse to comment and even have the cops haul them away if they didnt back off????

I've already demonstrated how this is not the case, but I just want to pause for a second and admire what is possibly the most erroneous and asinine comparison I have ever seen, anywhere. Unless of course your name is Barrack Obama...

Government =/= business, Politicians are the bosses, their employees are the employees and the people that are left are the customers and that's about as close to making sense as comparing the two will ever get.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, sure this plan looks good on paper. DHS is gonna keep us safe and take care of us. But with today's general government mindset that I just mentioned, I'm not buying it.

Maybe this is just a product of living in Washington DC, but all my life so far I've been surrounded with innumerable politicians, protesters, tourists and assholes who have pretty constantly been diligent, stupid, ignorant and assholes respectively. I've met plenty of current and former government officials and the grand majority of them are honest people who are just trying to do their jobs. The only examples of arrogance that I have seen come from the highest echelons in which case they've earned a bit of a superior attitude because they made it that far. And, for that matter, people like yourself who think the whole government is beholden to you and you know what's best and since it's for you that you should decide everything. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out which of those two is more bullshit, hint: It's not the first one

[ditchdj]

Well Wingate, it doesn't help that the fact that the government also LIES to us constantly. Most recently.....

-The Gulf of Tonkin incident
-The bullshit rescue story of Jessica Lynch (which really disgusts me!)
-The death of Pat Tillman (which really disgusts me even more!)
-WMD's in Iraq
-Acts of terrorism against Cuba and most other countries that dont welcome our corporations

The lastest one that I heard is: "The TSA doesn't store images of naked passenger photos taken with the scanners".

http://www.newsmild.com/leaked-u-s-m...mages-revealed

And you think that for ME to question what our government is doing is "bullshit"????

Heh, when you lie to me, everything you tell me is suspect.

And as for "Consipracy Theory", have you even seen it??? I'm betting you haven't. Jesse DOES try to contact people in government to get some answers and most won't even talk to him.

So no, I used to "Go along to get along", but not anymore. When you go beyond what the mainstream media reports and dig a little deeper it really changes your way of thinking.

people like yourself who think the whole government is beholden to you

"Government of the people, for the people, and by the people."

I believe in the Constitution and what they stand for. Our government no longer does. I have a BIG problem with that.

First and foremost the HLS Secretary is still accountable to her superiors and if they decide that her decisions are erroneous, she can be fired. Additionally, not only is she still bound by all the laws which restrict her actions, of which there are plenty, this clause is really a necessity. The last thing we need is for something to come up that doesn't exactly fit the enumerated purposes and no one can do anything because of red tape.

Well......we'll see about that when we see how far all those TSA lawsuits being filed in federal court hold up. Somehow I can just picture the judge taking all those cases and playing "Paper-wad Basketball" with them. But I'll sit back and see what happens.....