US Govt begins its crackdown ... on its own citizens.

WaveRyder · February 2012

This is why the Federal Government found it necessary to pass NDAA.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... 0V20120207

this is fucking scary, and I don't mean the "sovereign citizens."

bgivens33 · February 2012

I'm a pretty big critic of the government, but I'm a bit lost at why this article upsets you.

WaveRyder · February 2012

for starters, this

"Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.

"We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters," said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent."

^Fear mongering at its worst. 18 out of 300 million.....time to panic.

Second, so this comes from "Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counter terrorism division." and we now have the NDAA. So that means anyone that they decide fits this description can be picked up and indefinitely detained. and the description "The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard." is laughable.

Third, there is a huge difference between extremists of any belief and the mainstream of that belief. I think that the government is bigger then its founders intentions but that doesn't make me want to go ballistic on police. We can change this country through positive action not unruly discord.

peacefrompaul · February 2012

Disturbing article. 18 people is threatening?

That is a dangerous article to read if you're stupid enough to believe the "fear" it is presenting.

keeponrockin · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

for starters, this

"Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.

"We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters," said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent."

^Fear mongering at its worst. 18 out of 300 million.....time to panic.

Second, so this comes from "Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counter terrorism division." and we now have the NDAA. So that means anyone that they decide fits this description can be picked up and indefinitely detained. and the description "The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard." is laughable.

Third, there is a huge difference between extremists of any belief and the mainstream of that belief. I think that the government is bigger then its founders intentions but that doesn't make me want to go ballistic on police. We can change this country through positive action not unruly discord.

Arrest the assholes firing guns and being violent, let the others act through the legal means.

Seems simple.

brianlux · February 2012

keeponrockin wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

for starters, this

"Legal convictions of such extremists, mostly for white-collar crimes such as fraud, have increased from 10 in 2009 to 18 each in 2010 and 2011, FBI agents said.

"We are being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters," said Casey Carty, an FBI supervisory special agent."

^Fear mongering at its worst. 18 out of 300 million.....time to panic.

Second, so this comes from "Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counter terrorism division." and we now have the NDAA. So that means anyone that they decide fits this description can be picked up and indefinitely detained. and the description "The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard." is laughable.

Third, there is a huge difference between extremists of any belief and the mainstream of that belief. I think that the government is bigger then its founders intentions but that doesn't make me want to go ballistic on police. We can change this country through positive action not unruly discord.

Arrest the assholes firing guns and being violent, let the others act through the legal means.

Seems simple.

Sounds about right to me. If you don't so something stupid like shoot at cops you shouldn't need to worry. Succumbing to undo fear or panic won't solve a thing either- they'll just give you ulcers.

WaveRyder · February 2012

keeponrockin and brainlux..... ordinarily, id say i agree with you on this. But when our government can now arrest American citizens for intent, not actions, under NDAA, this becomes really scary. With the very broad description provided in the article, coupled with no longer having the right to habeus corpus, it isn't so cut and dry. I feel like our govt needs more restrictions when it comes to who they can and cant arrest.

If they think someone is a threat (whether its true or not), they can arrest them and never let them see the light of day again........this is for real. this is not a joke. and this is why it is FUCKIN SCARY.

he still stands · February 2012

WaveRyder wrote:

keeponrockin and brainlux..... ordinarily, id say i agree with you on this. But when our government can now arrest American citizens for intent, not actions, under NDAA, this becomes really scary. With the very broad description provided in the article, coupled with no longer having the right to habeus corpus, it isn't so cut and dry. I feel like our govt needs more restrictions when it comes to who they can and cant arrest.

If they think someone is a threat (whether its true or not), they can arrest them and never let them see the light of day again........this is for real. this is not a joke. and this is why it is FUCKIN SCARY.

agreed, but what I think is really inappropriate here is the government labeling a huge subsection of the population as "sovereign terrorists" and treating them all the same way as the EIGHTEEN (18) people who commited violent crimes who SUPPOSEDLY also fit into the same subsection.

Why don't we do this... whenever a Christian commits a violent crime we just say they are a "Christian terrorist" and all Christians are now terrorists who are under NDAA surveillance.

exact same fucking thing. and yeah, it is scary.

Godfather. · February 2012

peacefrompaul wrote:

Disturbing article. 18 people is threatening?

That is a dangerous article to read if you're stupid enough to believe the "fear" it is presenting.

I agree with you but you could have worded it differently there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid.

Godfather.

peacefrompaul · February 2012

Godfather. wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Disturbing article. 18 people is threatening?

That is a dangerous article to read if you're stupid enough to believe the "fear" it is presenting.

I agree with you but you could have worded it differently there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid.

Godfather.

Alright I'll be politically correct next time.

Godfather. · February 2012

peacefrompaul wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Disturbing article. 18 people is threatening?

That is a dangerous article to read if you're stupid enough to believe the "fear" it is presenting.

I agree with you but you could have worded it differently there is no reason to start calling anybody stupid.

Godfather.

Alright I'll be politically correct next time.

cool !

Godfather.

pandora · February 2012

100,000 members seems mighty low

Godfather. · February 2012

pandora wrote:

100,000 members seems mighty low

I used to know a few guys out of the 100,000..believe me ,they all end up paying tax's because if you don't everything will be taken away from you, that story is old news and and a little over inflated.

Godfather.

he still stands · February 2012

up until the early 1960's the way we dealt with transients and other undesirables who lived off the grid was to put them in jail for surreptitious reasons. It was sort of an unspeakable truth that everyone knew.

now, the government explicitly says that is you determine you are not owned by us, we will define you as a terrorist by law and indefinitely detain you.

which is worse? I'd argue the latter. It is codified which makes it even more dangerous.

pandora · February 2012

sounds like slavery

he still stands · February 2012

pandora wrote:

sounds like slavery

which raises this question; shouldn't you be able to opt out? what about voluntary association instead of obligatory ownership by the State?

(yes, that is what anarchism is)

mikepegg44 · February 2012

he still stands wrote:

Why don't we do this... whenever a Christian commits a violent crime we just say they are a "Christian terrorist" and all Christians are now terrorists who are under NDAA surveillance.

exact same fucking thing. and yeah, it is scary.

but HSS, Christians don't hate us for our freedoms ergo they are not terrorists...

I am beginning to think we may hate us for our freedoms, considering we elected officials that thought indefinite detainment of American citizens was a good option to give law enforcement... and will probably re-elect the majority of those same idiots

That would be my slogan if I ran for office.

America...we hate us for our freedoms.

he still stands · February 2012

mikepegg44 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Why don't we do this... whenever a Christian commits a violent crime we just say they are a "Christian terrorist" and all Christians are now terrorists who are under NDAA surveillance.

exact same fucking thing. and yeah, it is scary.

but HSS, Christians don't hate us for our freedoms ergo they are not terrorists...

I am beginning to think we may hate us for our freedoms, considering we elected officials that thought indefinite detainment of American citizens was a good option to give law enforcement... and will probably re-elect the majority of those same idiots

That would be my slogan if I ran for office.

America...we hate us for our freedoms.

who hates us for our freedoms? the "sovereign" group that wants to live off the grid? I think they don't "hate" anyone but just want to be left alone and to have REAL freedom, something that is laughable even in the U.S.

the point with the Christian analogy is just that you can take ANY group that a violent person belongs to, like male, bald, Floridian, income bracket, religion, people who watch "Always Sunny" etc and probably come up with the same statistical percentage as what we are shown here, 18 out of 100,000 of this supposedly "terrorist" group are violent.

0.018%.

mikepegg44 · February 2012

he still stands wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Why don't we do this... whenever a Christian commits a violent crime we just say they are a "Christian terrorist" and all Christians are now terrorists who are under NDAA surveillance.

exact same fucking thing. and yeah, it is scary.

but HSS, Christians don't hate us for our freedoms ergo they are not terrorists...

I am beginning to think we may hate us for our freedoms, considering we elected officials that thought indefinite detainment of American citizens was a good option to give law enforcement... and will probably re-elect the majority of those same idiots

That would be my slogan if I ran for office.

America...we hate us for our freedoms.

who hates us for our freedoms? the "sovereign" group that wants to live off the grid? I think they don't "hate" anyone but just want to be left alone and to have REAL freedom, something that is laughable even in the U.S.

the point with the Christian analogy is just that you can take ANY group that a violent person belongs to, like male, bald, Floridian, income bracket, religion, people who watch "Always Sunny" etc and probably come up with the same statistical percentage as what we are shown here, 18 out of 100,000 of this supposedly "terrorist" group are violent.

0.018%.

sorry, it was sarcasm.

but I meant what I said at the end...America...we hate us for our freedoms

he still stands · February 2012

mikepegg44 wrote:

sorry, it was sarcasm.

but I meant what I said at the end...America...we hate us for our freedoms

oh... sorry :oops:

i don't understand the "we hate us for our freedoms" thing though...

mikepegg44 · February 2012

he still stands wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

sorry, it was sarcasm.

but I meant what I said at the end...America...we hate us for our freedoms

oh... sorry :oops:

i don't understand the "we hate us for our freedoms" thing though...

everyone in America seems to say they want freedom. yet they support candidates in the government who are hell bent on infringing on the rights of the people. it happens all the time. Republicans and democrats across the board support legislation that can end up causing American citizens to be detained indefinitely. They support legislation that forces their own morality on to others...

I can only come to one assumption...that most Americans hate most other Americans for their freedoms since the actions of many are to try to take those away from others. Gay marriage, victimless crimes, abortion laws... all of these things are about infringing on the rights of others to force morality...what other conclusion can I come to? Americans hate freedoms of other Americans much more than any terrorist.

US Govt begins its crackdown ... on its own citizens.

Comments

Categories