Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bro. Curtis, Nov 25, 2014.
That is awesome. :laugh: I had a buddy who went to West Virginia University in Morgantown. While watching the Ferguson riots he said that people in Morgantown simply call that "gameday."
Yup. So much for "white people don't burn their town".
What's worse, a woman who has her cake business burned in an angry riot, or the man who has his hot dog stand destroyed when the local team wins ?
Thanks for posting that. It might be the only post I've seen on this board that has this often overlooked concept called perspective.
And who said that?
Speaking of perspective, here's my favorite sentence from the article:
Looking at the media as one great big "them" is an impediment to actually trying to hold any particular media outlet to account for careless use of language.
The above quote is from the op and is very problematic. They brought out all that equipment because property was being destroyed and lives were at risk. Very justified.
What in the world does this have to do with over militarized law enforcement? How is this a problem at all given the level of rioting (terrorism) that was going on?
Yeah it was a nice read and a pretty good find by Curtis. Looks like Mitch has missed the point in record time as usual.
I asked a civil question. I do not think it requires a personal attack.
The article clearly states the police department in Keene, NH, requested military equipment in case the annual pumpkin festival was attacked by terrorists. With past history as the guide the police department knows that drunk college students will be a problem, not terrorist attacks. But they requested the items under the guise of needing them for counter terrorism actions.
The same scenario is being repeated around the country. Local police are grabbing sophisticated military hardware by using the excuse that there might be a terrorist attack...on our rural community.....of 1,200 citizens.....in West Virginia.
If you look around at other police forces, Rev, you will see an uptick in militarized equipment purchases. A county police force here in the metro Atlanta area has a heavily armored SWAT tank that serves no purpose. They've never needed it, but they still have it.
Not saying it is not an issue. But it is not an issue that has anything to do with Ferguson. two separate things.
Okay, I can see that. There is an argument that some police forces will try to "up their game," so to speak, in order to be prepared for the next episode of whatever is going to happen, and so they will use Ferguson as a rallying point of why they should be allowed access to more militarized gear.
You have people on the conservative/libertarian/self-sufficient side of the aisle saying police militarization is unnecessary but proves the government is arming itself for a citizen revolt. You have people on the liberal/statist side of the aisle saying that the police should never use force, regardless of the situation. It's odd, because you'd think those roles would be reversed, given the conservative love of militarization, but that's what I've seen and read online.:BangHead:
I have not decided how I feel about police with "militarized" gear.
I can see why some would be concerned with that. There is good logic in the idea that police should never be more heavily armed than its citizens.
Conservatives do not love militarization. Conservative actual do not like it but see it as a necessary evil. Liberals do not like it because it take money away from their pet communist agenda. It's just not something they want to spend money on. Also, they have faith and trust in government. In fact Juan Williams wrote and article the other day on how we should all be thankful for the many blessings we receive from government.
Conservatives do not trust government. Hence, the hesitation of to much equipment for the police. The problem for police is that when American citizens are trying to outgun the police, naturally they want to protect themselves from every day threats.
I do not want police to be a threat to citizens, but I do want them protected.
Is it they don't need it, because they have it?
Now, maybe I missed it, but what was the extent of the damage in Keene, New Hampshire?
Keene is just one example. The city of San Francisco gets torched every time the Giants win the World Series (riots in 2010, 2012 and 2014)
How about Vancouver during the Stanley Cup finals in 2011.
How about Morgantown just about every time the Mountaineers win (sometimes even when they lose) a big game. There was a riot last month when they beat Baylor.
I don't care if the police have surplus military equipment. I don't like any kind of property destruction whatsoever.
The press is stupid. They say that CNN thought that there should be riots--I myself am never in the airport where they have CNN so I never watch them and don't know. Rich college boy hooliganism is intolerable. I don't know why Nixon did not deploy the National Guard last night in Ferguson. About 90% of the arrests were out-of-towners. The riot in Ferguson was the work of professional rioters such as the OWS crowd and other assorted misfits.
Once the gunfire started in MO, the police and National Guard should have used more force to stop the burning down of stores and buildings.
It is time for domestic tranquility and it is time for handling grievances through the legal channels.
Yeah, we needed more of this.
What kind of training do they have where they walk around with a rifle pointed at people. That's like basic range safety 101. You don't point a rifle at someone until it's time to pull the trigger. Even the military has been critical of the tactics.
I wanted to organize a protest when they stopped making Twinkies. But I was afraid it would become violent.
Now that's something I think we can all get behind.:thumbsup: