Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

The Boston bombers

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Larrys#1

Oh good. Got scared for a minute. Definitely don't close the site. I really like it a lot and it's the only good stooge site left. I also wonder what Whoa Moe was mad about. I didn't see anything wrong with the links here. It's also very weird why he get so mad and would asked to be banned. Never seen such strange behavior before.


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
Oh good. Got scared for a minute. Definitely don't close the site. I really like it a lot and it's the only good stooge site left. I also wonder what Whoa Moe was mad about. I didn't see anything wrong with the links here. It's also very weird why he get so mad and would asked to be banned. Never seen such strange behavior before.

He used to post under the name "Boid Brain."  He got in trouble about a year or so ago, when he suddenly started posting nudie pictures on the site.  At first it was only a couple of relatively mild pictures, so I let it slide, but of course he decided that gave him permission to post whatever he wanted and I had to crack down on them and added a rule stating no more NSFW pictures on the site.

I still have no idea what he was going on about as far as a "gay porn option" on the site.  If there was any, I'd definitely know about it.  Personally, I post all my gay porn over on Tumblr.   (That link is definitely NSFW, btw!)  >:D

We get our fair share of crackpots on the site.  Whoa Moe wasn't the first, and I'm sure he won't be the last.   ;D


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
This is an excellent follow-up by Doug Newman to his first blog post, which I shared earlier in this thread.

Quote from: FoodForThinkers.com
“Sometimes Martial Law Is Necessary”

Thus read a response to my Friday column about the lockdown of 1 million people during the manhunt for one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects. I didn’t “write” that so much as I slapped together a bunch of random thoughts.

I just want to say that I am honored by the response that this received by viral “sharing” of it on Facebook. Thank you, everyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are some more random bullet points.

1.  On April 19, 1995, a few hours after the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, a coworker commented on how easy it was for people to just “drive up anywhere”. I asked her if she would prefer to live an alternative kind of society where moving around freely was not an option. Boston on April 19, 2013 was just such a place. The inability to travel freely is a common feature of all totalitarian societies.


The Berlin Wall.

2. If a million people in and around Boston can be put on lockdown for one day, why can’t a million people elsewhere be put on lockdown for 3 or 4 or even more days sometime in the not-too-distant future?

3. And why were just Boston and some surrounding towns on lockdown? I mean, like, the suspect could have fled to Cape Cod, Worcester, Springfield or Williamstown. Or, he could have crossed state lines. Why not put all of New England and New York on lockdown?


4. “But what if the terrorist was on the loose in your neighborhood?” you ask. “Wouldn’t you feel safer being on lockdown?” No, actually I wouldn’t feel safer at all. And while I would certainly appreciate notice that an intensive manhunt was underway, I would also like the opportunity to get the hell out of my neighborhood for my own safety. And you can’t very well do that when you are on lockdown.

5. If you are a “conservative” who approves of the Beantown Lockdown, DON’T EVER complain to me again about nationalized health care, the IRS, gun control or any other big government program. None of these ever resulted in a million people not being able to leave their homes. You deserve every ounce of big government you get.


They hate us for our freedom.

6. What  is the next step after a lockdown? Drone strikes? All of America is now a battlefield in the war on terror. And there could be a “suspected militant” right in your neighborhood – a scary looking guy with a name you can’t pronounce from a country you can’t find on a map where the military budget is less than the payroll for the Red Sox infield.  So what if 100 innocent people are killed by a Hellfire missile “if it gets the bad guy.”


7. Why not also internment camps for Chechens, Muslims, etc.? I mean, like, desperate times call for desperate measures.

8. “Sometimes you have to give up liberty to have security.” They sang the exact same song in Germany in 1933 as they gave up their liberty for 12 years of sicherheit.

9. And if you don’t think Uncle Sam would kill innocent Americans en masse, think again. And consider the Branch Davidians, the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek Massacre, Wounded Knee and the War of Northern Aggression from 1861-1865.

10. About 40 people are murdered every day in America. About 280 have been murdered in the last week. Why do the 4 Boston killings – 3 at the Marathon and the cop at MIT – get all the attention? (And this is not to minimize the grief of those affected by these killings.) Fourteen people perished in the plant explosion in West, Texas, and that has not been nearly as much of a showstopper as the Boston bombing.


11. If you think the warrantless searches during the lockdown were “reasonable” because there was a manhunt for a terrorist, do you likewise believe that it is “reasonable” for TSA to molest children at airports?

12.If you tolerate locking down schools for the safety of the students, why wouldn’t they take the next step and put whole cities on lockdown?


Aurora, June 2, 2012

13.If you approve of the police in Aurora, Colorado – where I live – detaining 40 innocent people for 2 hours in order to apprehend one bank robbery suspect, why wouldn’t police restrict the liberty of 1 million people for a whole day?

14.   If you cheered on the police authorities in Southern California as they shot at innocent people as they hunted down and killed Christopher Dorner with no due process, why wouldn’t cops put entire cities on lockdown to catch a fugitive?


15.   It does not surprise me at all that so many chowds celebrated the capture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev while not minding at all that they had been under martial law for the better part of a day. Since 9/11, many millions – perhaps even a majority – of Americans have gladly accepted – in the name of “safety” and “security”: warrantless searches and spying, the suspension of habeas corpus, sexual assault as a condition of travel, rampant police brutality, indefinite detention without any semblance of due process, severe restrictions on peaceful protest and surveillance drones in our skies watching our every move. Are predator drones next?

16. You will note that I have not mentioned the names of any politicians here. It does not matter at all whom we elect anymore. When you grant unconstitutional power to a president that you like and trust, please know that the next president will inherit and, inevitably, augment these unconstitutional powers.

17.  “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Davis, Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

18.   At the “4/20” marijuana rally in Denver on Saturday, 2 people were shot and a third was grazed by a bullet. As this column goes to bed, the suspect remains at large. Should metro Denver – including Aurora, where I live – be put on lockdown for everyone’s “safety”?

19.   If you profess a belief in Jesus, who would He subject to martial law?

20.   Do you believe everything the government and their media lapdogs tell you?





Source: http://foodforthethinkers.com/2013/04/23/sometimes-martial-law-is-necessary/
Re-posted by permission of the author.


Offline ILMM

Some responses:

#1 True statement with implied false equivalence; yes, the inability to move freely is a mark
of totalitarian government. But it does not mean that because there is an instance of people not
being able to move freely that necessary they are living under totalitarian rule.

#2 Lack of information. I guess there is no reason that  might not happen, going just by what you said.

#3 Don't know. Call and ask the police if you really want to know.

#5 You still haven't proved that what happened was tyrannical.

#6 Straw man; no one is calling for drone strikes. Why on earth use a drone strike in an american city?

To be continued...
"That must be Nick Barker.... he's disguised as a black banana."-Shemp


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
#1 True statement with implied false equivalence; yes, the inability to move freely is a mark
of totalitarian government. But it does not mean that because there is an instance of people not
being able to move freely that necessary they are living under totalitarian rule.

I never heard of a free and open society that locked down a city and forbid people to leave their homes on pain of death.  Just how would you define totalitarianism?

Quote
#2 Lack of information. I guess there is no reason that  might not happen, going just by what you said.

The point is that once a precedent like this has been established, it will inevitably be expanded even further.  Just paying a little attention to the history of the past 20 years or so should be enough to make someone realize that.

Quote
#3 Don't know. Call and ask the police if you really want to know.

Fair enough.  I happen to agree with the author, and I think it takes a lack of imagination and unbelievable trust in whatever the government tells you to not find that point curious, though.

Quote
#5 You still haven't proved that what happened was tyrannical.

Seriously?

Well, if you can't look at pictures showing masses of armed men roaming the streets, forcing their way into people house, and threatening to shoot at anyone who even looks out their windows and not find that tyrannical, then either you don't understand the word or would have been completely comfortable living in the Soviet Union.

Exactly what would you consider to be proof of tyrannical behavior?  Do they have to start opening fire on crowds of people before you'll be bothered by it?

Quote
#6 Straw man; no one is calling for drone strikes. Why on earth use a drone strike in an american city?

Actually, some people are.  Sen. Lindsey Graham, for one.


Offline ILMM

I define totalitarianism as living under a government that oppresses all opposition to it's policy's,
stifles all dissent, and it's citizens live in fear of occuring it's wrath. Listen, the argument against
the police in boston seems to me to be this: tyrannical govenments prevent people from moving freely,
the boston pd prevented people from moving freely; tyrants use armed police to do this, there were
armed police in boston; therefore, what happened in boston was tyrannical. But I do not believe this
argument is valid, because, using the same logic, you could make these arguments:

The nazi's were a political movement that displaced an established government, the founding fathers led a movement that displaced an established government; the nazi's used force to get what they wanted,
the founding fathers used force to get what they wanted; therefore, the founding fathers were like the
nazi's.

Murderer's shoot guns; second admendment supporters shoot guns; therefore second admendment
supporters are murderers.

Bears are furry mammals, gerbils are furry mammals; bears have teeth, girbils have teeth; therefore
bears and girbils are the same thing.

Now, all these arguments are absurd, but why? Because they either take things out of context,
or ignore important differances, or both. Yes, what happened in boston was sort of like totalitarianism,
just like the founding fathers were sort of like nazi's, or bears are sort of like gerbils, but not in the ways
that really matter. I'll explain why I think what happened in boston was not tyrannical in a later post.













"That must be Nick Barker.... he's disguised as a black banana."-Shemp


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
That was a completely unjustifiable mass deployment of thousands of heavily armed police in Boston.  They blatantly violated the Constitution throughout the process, unlawfully detaining innocent citizens in their homes and elsewhere, forcing their way into homes at gun point  without a warrant, threatening to shoot people for even watching from their windows.  (See the picture above.)

[youtube=560,315]2LrbsUVSVl8[/youtube]

The police are being terrorists here.  They were literally going door to door terrorizing innocent citizens, treating them like common criminals.  This is supposed to be a free country, not a prison, damn it.  The police have no more right to behave this way then you or I do.

If people cannot understand what is wrong with what the government was doing in Boston, then I guess this country really is just totally fucked.   ::)

By the way - the Nazis did not "displace an established government."  They were elected into office lawfully.  Just as Americans are doing to themselves today.


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography

What’s Bad About a House-to-House Search?

by Michael S. Rozeff
    
    
Unless the search passes certain legal criteria, it is illegal.

The search in Boston set a precedent, which means that such searches can be generalized to other places in America and to other situations, unless whoever authorized the Boston search is reprimanded and sanctioned for having ordered it. That seems to be Governor Deval Patrick, at a minimum.

Unless this search is clearly labeled and understood as being illegal and wrong, it creates a precedent. This changes the law de facto, even if not de jure. A de facto change will become a de jure change if only by interpretation

But what's bad about such a precedent? What's bad about the police having the power to make house-to-house searches routinely?

Consider what sorts of searches were common in totalitarian countries. This provides an inkling of the results of such police power.

First of all, America is in some respects following a path that Nazi Germany followed. I quote from one account:

"Police manpower was even extended by the incorporation of Nazi paramilitary organizations as auxiliary policemen. The Nazis centralized and fully funded the police to better combat criminal gangs and promote state security. The Nazi state increased staff and training, and modernized police equipment."

This has been happening in America for some time now. These are initial steps in creating a police state. The centralization is done through building authoritative organizations that control local deviations in behavior and through funding. The funding brings in militarization and central coordination, training, and routines.

From the same source, we next read

"The Nazis offered the police the broadest latitude in arrests, incarceration, and the treatment of prisoners. The police moved to take 'preventive action' that is, to make arrests without the evidence required for a conviction in court and indeed without court supervision at all."

We are seeing in America a broad latitude given to police in making charges against civilians, in mistreating them and getting off the hook, in killing civilians in some cases rather than arresting them, in bringing false evidence into courts, in lying under oath and having their words accepted, and in seizing property. We also see prosecutors suppressing evidence and bringing false charges. Add to these misbehaviors and others the fact that almost anyone can be guilty of one or more felonies. When all is said and done, police are subjecting a significant fraction of America's population to a police state.

Highway and transportation searches are already common. Here's a photo dated Feb. 27, 1933 of German police searching a car for arms:


America is not going to follow what Nazi Germany did in any kind of lockstep fashion. There is too much variation in situations and events and laws for any two societies to mimic one another precisely. The American police state already has some unique features such as the LOCKDOWN. The spectacle of Americans being routed from their homes with raised arms and herded down the street is not too far, however, from German soldiers arresting Jews in Warsaw in 1943:


In a house-to-house search, police can find evidence of many wrongdoings. This depends on other laws that are passed and what items may be searched. Police could find a copyright violation on most everyone's computer, for example. They could find drugs. They could find out-of-date prescription drugs. They could find weapons. They could find cash and seize it. It is the search power combined with other laws that become a powerful tool of repression.

"The Nazis took control and transformed the traditional police forces of the Weimar Republic into an instrument of state repression and, eventually, of genocide."

Even without other law, the mere interaction of common people with police in house-to-house searches can result in arguments, altercations, arrests, injuries and deaths. The police expect obedience and deference. In Watertown, they demanded that people leave their homes and raise their arms over their heads. There are many situations where people don't want to leave, or cannot due to illness, or who do not understand what's going on, or refuse to kowtow, or who naturally resist intimidation. Arrests and charges lead to criminal records and subsequently affect everything from employment to getting a loan to traveling to having a firearm.

In an article on one of the Russian police agencies while under Communist rule, we read

"Leonid Brezhnev reverted the State and KGB to actively harsh suppression – routine house searches to seize documents and the continual monitoring of dissidents."

Once searches become routine, i.e., without warrants or under very loose conditions, then police can intrude for any number of activities that the authorities have deemed illegal or a threat to the authority of the State itself. In Russia, this included political speech against the State. In America, all sorts of records of money transactions might be monitored or seized in order to detect "suspicious" political contributions or other activities, for example.

House-to-house searches, of course, make hash out of privacy.

So, in short, what is bad about these house-to-house searches that we have just witnessed?

They set a bad precedent in which Americans allow measures that significantly raise the likelihood of further repressive measures in the future. Why does the threat of further repression go up? It's because these searches are illegal. Undermining rights and respect for rights helps set the stage for further measures that repress liberty. It's because these searches follow closely upon the heels of other measures that have already laid the foundation of an American police state.

This is the direction in which America is headed.

The reason for this direction is terrorism directed at America. The reason for the terrorism is the conclusion among the men engaging in it that Islam is under attack and/or that the lands in which Islam is prominent are under attack.

Washington will continue to go into places like Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq, and therefore retaliation can be expected. The empire will continue to use drones that kill innocents. It will continue to pressure Iran. It will continue undermining Syria. It will continue to try to change the politics of these lands. It will continue with its benighted Israel policy. It will continue to support the military-industrial complex, which is one major source of all of this unnecessary expansion.

Consequently, at home, it will continue to turn America into a target for jihadist attacks, and it will continue police measures that can easily turn the whole country into a police state.

April 24, 2013

Source: http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff404.html


Offline JazzBill


Haven't you heard of the Homosexual Agenda, ya big silly goose?  Obviously I'm out to corrupt them all and make 'em queer!   >:D

(I'm still waiting for my copy of the Agenda, by the way.  I've been having to just wing it.)   ::)

Wow! was this true?



Sorry Rob, I ran across this while looking looking for a clip on Reefer Madness.
I was going to post it on your "walk off the earth thread "
This one is even dumber!  [shrug]
"When in Chicago call Stockyards 1234, Ask for Ruby".


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
Wow! was this true?

(...)

Sorry Rob, I ran across this while looking looking for a clip on Reefer Madness.
I was going to post it on your "walk off the earth thread "
This one is even dumber!  [shrug]

Of course it's true!  Don't you know that homos are out to corrupt the youth of America and make them all into practicing poofs?   >:D

I haven't seen that piece of nonsense in a long time!  I think we actually saw that in "health" class when I was in Junior High back in the late 60s.  The most ironic part is that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual.  And I'll lay odds that the vast, overwhelming majority of teenage boys who hookup with older guys do so not only willingly but actively seek it out.  (If you want a learn a skill, you find someone experienced to teach you, right?)

I still think "Reefer Madness" is dumber; at least, it's certainly funnier.   ;)



Offline metaldams

Wow! was this true?



Sorry Rob, I ran across this while looking looking for a clip on Reefer Madness.
I was going to post it on your "walk off the earth thread "
This one is even dumber!  [shrug]

My brother and I watched this video a few months back and thought it was hysterical.  The idea anybody could take this seriously. 
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
My brother and I watched this video a few months back and thought it was hysterical.  The idea anybody could take this seriously.

I just watched that again and caught the line, "... a sickness that was not visible, like smallpox, but no less dangerous and contagious." 

Contagious?  Do we spew homo germs?   :o

Actually, I'm blaming Walt Disney for making me gay, through the Adventures of Spin and Marty on the Mickey Mouse Club.  (It's probably why I also have a thing for cowboys.)  ;)