Skip to main content

View Diary: DHS and OWS: the leftwing version of Black Helicopters? (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for your wild speculation. (0+ / 0-)

    Feel free to contribute evidence.

    The $100 is looking pretty safe.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 06:05:20 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  LOL Since you won't get a "smoking gun" document (0+ / 0-)

      which is probably the only thing you would grudgingly accept, your $100 is quite safe and always has been. But you knew that.

      I've offered proof that law enforcement coordination through DHS is well-established policy.  I've offered a reasonable rationale for a coordinated effort (real life training exercise).  I've shown another instance where protesters were unwitting guinea pigs.  The best predictor of future behavior as any mental health professional will tell you is past behavior.

      Now it's up to you to show why it's unreasonable to wonder if similar law enforcement actions happening in multiple cities in the same time frame were coordinated.  I won't hold my breath.

      By the way, minimizing the obstacles the protesters face does not help them.  Perhaps that's your intent.

      Which side are you on?

      by wiseacre on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 06:23:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So, you have nothing better than Orly Taitz's (0+ / 0-)

        court filings.

        P.S.  Congratulations on the scoop that the DHS coordinates with local law enforcement agencies.  

        Yes, it is unreasonable to suppose that police responses in multiple cities were coordinated.  It's like suggesting that people opening umbrellas in multiple cities where it's raining is a conspiracy.

        Of course police are going to react to protestors.  

        And, when protests are going on in dozens of cities, it would be really hard for none of them to wind up doing the same thing.

        P.S.  What do you make of the rightwing argument that the failure to evict protestors is an Obama-led conspiracy?

        Oh, and ACORN!!!!

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 06:30:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ad hominems are all you've got? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The distracting BS you're throwing at me shows you don't want to find an answer, for reasons known only to you.

          I really don't care if these actions were coordinated or not.  What changes if they were?  Nothing.  

          Maybe my growing up in Franco's Spain has something to do with my awareness of stuff like this.  You don't get over seeing your neighbor dragged into a van and disappeared, you remember it and the context that led to it.  

          Have a good evening defending DHS.  I'm sure they only want the best for all Americans, they follow procedures scrupulously, they never overreach, and all those non-lethal weapons they have developed to quell dissent (as the likelihood that crowds of terrorists marching in the streets will ever need to be controlled is nil) are indeed non-lethal, humane, and perfectly justifiable.  Because unarmed citizens shouting cannot be tolerated in a free society.

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 07:08:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not defending DHS. I'm objecting (0+ / 0-)

            to a wanton disregard for the truth.

            If people are going to effectively equate Barack Obama with Hosni Mubarak or Ben Ali, they really should put up something besides some fool's Tweet.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 07:11:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So if DHS gets out of hand it's the President's (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              fault?  Is that what this kerfluffle of yours is actually about?

              If there is a coordinated effort, it makes Barack Obama look worse than his standing by his Wall Street buddies and not prosecuting any of them?  Really?

              I think it's been established that the President, alas, does not have the control over executive agencies that he should by rights have.  I don't think any president since Ike has.  An out of control agency is easy to forgive.  So if that's what's worrying you, relax.  You have plenty of other stuff to be concerned about.

              Which side are you on?

              by wiseacre on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 07:17:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It goes back to the paranoid tradition (0+ / 0-)

                of American politics.

                I grew up in a deep red state, and this kind of paranoid bullshit is what leads people to pick up guns and shoot federal marshals.  It happened in my home state when I was growing up.


                The notion that the big bad federal government is out to oppress anyone who dares speak out against it.

                Jackbooted thugs, new world order, black helicopters, etc etc.

                That got us Oklahoma City.

                Adopting the talking points of the militia movement is not going to help things.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 07:23:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now you're comparing me to homegrown terrorists? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  By my saying that the federal government quells dissent?  Have you heard of the 1960s and 1970s?  Do you remember the campaign to silence criticism during the Iraq War? Talk about delusional.

                  Or are you saying under THIS President alone there is no way the federal government would ever overreach? If only.

                  I actually have life experience with a jackbooted government.  I simply don't want to see my own government go down that road, and that is more important to me than ties to a political party or candidate.  I work on this goal through civil debate. To me, that makes me patriotic and a defender of the Constitution.  To you it makes me a militia sympathizer with a potential for violence.  What does that say about YOU and YOUR paranoia?

                  I love and revere all life. I've never been violent in my life, besides slapping a classmate in 5th grade after being slapped first.  My religion requires that I be anti-war and anti-death penalty and I have no trouble obeying doctrine.  Equating me to Timothy McVeigh could not be more offensive or unfair.

                  Which side are you on?

                  by wiseacre on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 08:27:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Don't be silly. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Its ok when someone who is nominally left engages in conspiracy theories.

                  Its nothing like when the far right does it.

                  Hell hath no fury like a cat ignored...

                  by Gatordiet on Sun Oct 30, 2011 at 09:10:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (63)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (35)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Culture (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Environment (22)
  • Science (22)
  • Labor (18)
  • Law (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Spam (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site