U.S. Military ‘Power Grab’

Environment means natural disasters.

No, natural disasters were also listed separately.

You may be correct, they didn't list natural disasters in that tiny paragraph. It looks they are referring to explosives though with the way the rest of the sentence is worded. F'ing head hurts. I'm out.

You seem to forget the revolutionary war itself was pretty much won by "terrorist" attacks.

It's not even that very many people think this means that we're in imminent danger of some kind of military occupation. It's the total lack of "doing a good job" that makes it look like they're trying to be sketchy - because this can't be the anything like the best efforts of our best lawmakers, right?

Well, some events of the revolutionary war where terrorism :<
Others that actually won the war were common guerrilla tactics :<

This is where that definition gets blurred.

However, I would much rather see military presence before we have something on our hands like a mass scale Hurricane Katrina again. If the military and other armed defense groups could've immediately been brought in, besides the national guard, it prolly would've been contained/controlled better.

However, i wouldnt give the military permission to go in with such semi-vague legislation as justification for sudden martial law.

Google

at least Google has a sense of humor, I'm alright with them being our overlords. Wasn't it Google who told the US and China at different times it wouldn't change their policy for them or something, or is my memory off?

one man's terrorist, another man's freedom-fighter.

Hopefully this is just for the next group of *** that thinks their funny youtubing a flash mob.

I think it just feels threatening because of the branding, and the negative connotations and mistrust associated with both governmental bureaucracy and the Military Industrial Complex. If they named the measure "the GI Joe Initiative" and put Dwayne Johnson or Tommy Lee Jones as the spokesperson, people would probably feel better about it. :p

It's not the police's job to keep your home safe, it's yours...

People like to say "neo-con".
People don't know what "neo-con" means.
This is a VERY statist (i.e. leftist) policy.

Wow, every single part of this post makes my head hurt. I knew there were sheep in the world, but Damn!

Ok it could have been worded better, but actually this is about right. As incompetent as portions of the government are, I simply do not see anything that says we're about to turn into a total police state.

Let me try and persuade you with two things. First, although I often roll my eyes at all the things that various sides put out there, the mere existence of it makes me feel pretty comfortable that free thought isn't being squashed in the US. Compare to North Korea, where it just doesn't exist, at all - all of the dissenters are literally locked in prison for life.

Second, if you're going to have a police state, you don't need some wording in a law code book to make it happen. You simply send in the troops, and shoot anyone who argues. We are not remotely on the verge of that. Just because you can find a few people here and there that would like to make the US into a police state does not mean the government et. al. is heading that way.

While the US clearly has its share of problems, we've also been going for a good 150 years now without blowing up (civil war being the low point). That has to mean something, right?

You don't understand.

In the 1960s it was leftist. As in 'we must save these benighted people from themselves'.

Since the mid 70s it has become rightist. That's why the name change.

Rightist in this example = regime change.

But in the 1960s as today what it all adds up to is spending money here to kill someone there.

TLDR: Fascist = Government by and for the corporations.

You're wasting your time. He just dropped leftist because everything in his mind that isn't in his conservative box is evil straight out of the pits of Hell.

Nevermind both Democratic and Republican administrations have had no problem initiating regime change when it suit the global interests of a few at the cost of trillions to the American people. Shall we start namedropping the wonderful things the CIA did under our banner? All the propping up of very shady leaders who unleashed unspeakable horrors upon their people while being bankrolled by the US during our little game of chess with the Soviet Union? Right, lets continue with the infantile left/right dichotomy. I'm a fan of monochrome thinking.

Both parties have set America on the path of being the superpower we are today and both are responsible for the consequences of those actions - many of which have come back to bite us in the ***. Saddam Hussain? Osama Bin Laden? Our old chums turned bitter enemies but most people still don't know we propped those two up when it was convenient to our interests.

Like I said: Things are so much easier when you think in monochrome.

To point at Democrats or Republican is to miss the point that both parties want power and will claw for more.

You forgot that we may have indirectly(or was it directly?) put Castro in power by fueling that little coup de tat ,and many others just like it.

Someone just finished watching Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States!



Hussein never really crossed the US personally though. The Gulf war to Iraq was just an attempt to reclaim a part of their country that was carved off by some British guy. He also ran a very secular state that kept the nutjobs in check, sometimes with Nerve gas.

ftfy

American policy in under 2 Minutes:




Blowback and a lack of accountability.

Yet the very people who seek to weaken the government, the Tea Party, get mocked because Jon Stewart says so. And quit with your strawman ignorant BS. I said leftist because government control is traditionally leftist, or does that confuse you? Maybe you should go open a history book. I suggest "Liberty and Tyranny". This is not up for debate simply because you didn't like Bush or whatever. Conservatism is about minimal governmental control, not as laissez-faire as libertarianism, but not as much of a nanny state as the liberals, who are TO THE LEFT.

Cartoons and humor... Making anything easy to swallow, true or false. Again, I reference Jon Stewart.

It's either black or it's white! Everything pieces together so easily when there's only two categories!

Stewart bashes Obama with a reach around

They get mocked because those are the same people demanding the government come to their aid when an unfortunate disaster happens on their doorstep, the people who demand that the government quit with the taxes but want infrastructure the 21st century could be proud of and generally pick and choose where they want government control to be at its apex.

Funny you speak about conservatism when those who champion the banner are too busy worried about who has sex with who and pushing their backwards religious beliefs on others rather than addressing real problems this country faces. The Republicans are just as eager to use force and government as the Democrats and the only thing up for argument is what they use the government for. Or did you forget about those war debts already? Fiscal responsibility? Give me a break, the Reps were ready to kick some *** in Iran if Romney got elected.

Or are you going to attempt to pretend that the platform isn't about shoving Christianity down everyone's throats, starting wars and being as intrusive as humanly possible? Rick Santorum didn't become frontrunner in the last elections on his good looks. He laid the religion on thick and the moths came to the flame.

Rick Santorum has nothing to do with the Tea Party as the Tea Party has nothing to do with Christianity. The tea party arose out of anger over the fiscal collapse and the bailouts that ensued. They are for low taxes and fiscal responsibility. Straight up.

Those who prefer large government, the Democrats and establishment Republicans tarnish their reputation by lumping in all that other *** you just did.

Edit: The only real Tea Party candidate was Herman Cain.

And the Tea Party was co-opted by the Koch Bros (amongst others) and immediately became an arm to sell the very same style of Republican 'big government' the partiers loathe and why the movement has become the laughingstock it is today. A legitimate outcry (mirroring OWS) immediately became twisted into bizarre quasi-patriotic schlock designed to get the big gummint, corporatism down the hatch.

You really want to claim Michelle Bachmann as a champion of the cause?

Nah, man. Sarah Palin.