Tancredo: Take out their holy sites

[hillclimber1]

You assert something with overwhelming audacity, refuse to prove your claim, and then challenge me to disprove your position? Until you prove something, whether you feel the need to do so or not, there's absolutely no need to disprove it since there's nothing proven to disprove. The fact that you assert something does not place a burden of disproof upon people who disagree.

Nor am I obligated to prove anything so obvious.

Or perhaps they will search the national soul to see why exactly they're the target of such hatred. Oh wait, it's obviously because of the Koran which clearly states that the United States must be destroyed. Right.

Hey this isn't worth anything. I'm not going to banter further with you

............

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Really! That should be an outrage to you then shouldn't it? It is to me now that you put it that way. How many thousands of billions do you figure we've handed over to public servants that have been promising that if we just give them a little more power more money and more control each time something comes up to 'justify' the increase in power and funding that they'll keep us safe from all these dire threats that's popped over the past 5 or 6 decades?

You'd think being the good stewards they are they'd have built a right fine high tech militarized police state who's only soul purpose it to protect citizens, wouldn't ya? Where is it? Show it to me now or give me back my money!

Militarized police? Sounds like you want your cake and eat it to. Law enforcement has its limits on the high end of force. The military has its limits on the low end of force. Hence, the reason the military cannot be used for civil law enforcement, as it should be. Terrorists are more equpped than the mission of civilian law enforcement provides for. we can militarize the civil law enforcement but then all you have is the military policing the streets. The separation of missions is a chacks and balance in our system.

 

[poncho]

Militarized police? Sounds like you want your cake and eat it to.

Actually if you look around a bit you may notice we already have a militarized police state. What's it used for? Protecting us or intimidating us?

Law enforcement has its limits on the high end of force.

That's all changing fast isn't it?

The military has its limits on the low end of force.

Then why is it being used to police the world?

Hence, the reason the military cannot be used for civil law enforcement, as it should be.

If it cannot be used for civil law enforment then why is it? See New Oleans after Katrina. Not only was our military used to police citizens so were foreign militaries. Posse Commitatus? What a joke! Bush wants to get rid of that too and if he can't he'll just ignore it and the people let him.

Terrorists are more equpped than the mission of civilian law enforcement provides for.

Maybe if our own intell and law enforcement agencies stopped protecting, equipping and using them for provacatuers that wouldn't be the case.

we can militarize the civil law enforcement but then all you have is the military policing the streets.

We already have that. Or didn't you notice that at the last RNC in NYC?

The separation of missions is a chacks and balance in our system.

That's an illusion. It may have been that way in history but now the military is training side by side police and working along side them. That isn't supposed to be happening. That is the law. But it's being ignored like so many others. You do know why Posse Commitatus was enacted in 1878 don't you?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

After Hurricane Charlie blew threw here on 04 we had a curfew and the national guard walked the streets for months. But the National guard can be called out in special circumstances when the local law enforcement is overwhelmed in natural disasters. But that has to meet certain criteria.

 

[poncho]

After Hurricane Charlie blew threw here on 04 we had a curfew and the national guard walked the streets for months. But the National guard can be called out in special circumstances when the local law enforcement is overwhelmed in natural disasters. But that has to meet certain criteria.

Had the same thing in my home town when the flood hit in 1972. We didn't have foreign military there and we didn't have mercenaries patrolling the streets either.

The National Guard wasn't confiscating guns from law abiding citizens then either come to think of it. When is the last time you can think of that foreign militaries and private mercenaries were used to police United States citizens? Is that constitutional? Is mass gun confiscation constitutional?