REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Could Poverty, Income Inequalities in US Lead to UK-Like Riots?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 17:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2213
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 12, 2011 6:56 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


We've been thinking about this, haven't we?
Quote:

Americans have watched in astonishment, along with the rest of the world, the violence that's erupted in England as young, disaffected Britons take to the streets to vent their rage.

But could it happen in the United States as it grapples with a 25 per cent youth unemployment rate and a double-dip recession potentially in the offing?

The current bleak landscape in the United States is littered with all the same disturbing elements at play in the U.K. _ racial tensions, high unemployment, a growing income gap between rich and poor, a gloomy economic outlook and a feeling of hopelessness among youth.

Recent statistics reveal that 39.2 per cent of black teens and 36.2 per cent of Hispanic youth are jobless. In New York City, black and Hispanic youths are twice as likely to drop out of school as their peers, have a poverty rate that is 50 per cent higher than other ethnicities, experience an unemployment rate that is 60 per cent higher, and make up more than 90 per cent of young murder victims and perpetrators.

Although the biggest riots in the United States have involved race and civil rights, some observers think throwing a Great Depression-esque economic situation into the mix could spur America's youth to rise up too.

"There is a direct correlation between the violence here in Chicago, which is off the charts right now, and the lack of investment in inner cities and inner-city youth," Phillip Jackson, founder of the Million Father March, said in an interview on Wednesday.

"In Chicago and other major American cities, the violent acts are singular and isolated. The violence in London has become collective and focused, but the underlying causes are the same, and as soon as American kids figure that out, we're in trouble."

But others point out that America has evolved in a far different direction than the country it broke away from in the 18th century. Class divisions are not as pronounced as they are in the U.K., they point out, and America's lower classes generally don't regard the upper classes with the seething contempt that their British counterparts do.

"In the U.S., if you're born into a lower socioeconomic class, there is still the perceived possibility of transcending that, of achieving wealth," said Sean Snaith, the director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Economic Competitiveness.

"The upper classes, the celebrity class, the wealthy _ to the average American, they're what royalty is to the British. Americans consider that something to be admired and held in esteem and awe. So that's a pretty good anesthesia in a lot of ways."

Youth might also be nervous taking to the streets given the tendency of American law enforcement agencies to respond to force with even greater force.

"Our police are much more willing to use brutal force," said Snaith. "There is no bobby mentality here; American police officers carry guns. If there's violence going down, they're going to respond with violence." http://finance.sympatico.ca/home/could_uk_riots_happen_in_the_united_s
tates/6b2ea178
Nightline last night we sat down with PBS and radio talk show host Tavis Smiley and Princeton University professor Dr. Cornel West about their Poverty Tour.
.....
"One percent of the people owning and controlling more wealth than 90% of Americans, that's unsustainable. That math won't hold up long-term. There is a bubbling, there is a restlessness."

"If you don't treat poor and working people with dignity now, chickens are going to come home to roost later," West said. "And it won't be about love and justice. It will be about revenge, hatred, and then we all go under." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/smiley-and-west-povert
y-income-inequalities-in-us-could-lead-to-uk-like-riots.html

I still can't help thinking about the irony if regular Americans, fed up with the gap between rich and poor (and we DO have a class system, deny it tho' we might), were to take to the streets and use those "second amendment remedies" the Tea Party hollered about so much AGAINST those who want to destroy what safety nets we have (which the Tea Party would gleefully like to get rid of). NOT that I ever want it to happen, but the irony is unmistakeable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 7:11 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


The only places where UK-like riots could happen (for longer than a day) are in places like Chicago, NY, California, and Mass.

Typical liberal strongholds that have high unemployment, low morality, and gun control.

Just in case, tho...

Clean your gun, make sure you have plenty of ammo, food, water, and a secure location.



"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 7:21 AM

CONCHOBAR71


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The only places where UK-like riots could happen (for longer than a day) are in places like Chicago, NY, California, and Mass.

Typical liberal strongholds that have high unemployment, low morality, and gun control.

Just in case, tho...

Clean your gun, make sure you have plenty of ammo, food, water, and a secure location.



"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"





I have a feeling we aren't far from such events in any state that has larger cities with high unemployment especially as race baiting and class warfare continue to rule our leaderships tenor.

My state has already begun to hear undertones that something is brewing. You're right about the gun control part too. I don't think morality plays a part at all. People who are desperate do stupid things.

Jayne: "Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 7:29 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


I know this is slightly off-topic but PN's thread has had enough views. The U.K "Riots" were triggered by a very complex set of back-issues, although Race-alienation and an incresing sense among the youth that they are likely to get away with acts of violence and vandalism only lightly punished were a factor. I'm not sure if this "Fear of our children" sindrome exists in the U.S. The chances of similar riots in America ARE very real, but for very different reasons.
I also wonder if you would see this afterward:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/heartwarming-stories-from-the-uk-riots.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 7:47 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"I have a feeling we aren't far from such events in any state that has larger cities with high unemployment especially as race baiting and class warfare continue to rule our leaderships tenor.

My state has already begun to hear undertones that something is brewing. You're right about the gun control part too. I don't think morality plays a part at all. People who are desperate do stupid things."

By morality I meant this: "I don't think its wrong to burn and loot so long as I get mine". Morality DOES play a big role in riots. Do I burn and loot a store, hurt or kill someone, so I can get something that I want (not need)?

I would have more respect for a looter (barely, but still) if during a riot they took medicine, food, even ammo... instead of Jordans, big screen Tvs, Ipods, or FuBu.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 7:53 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"I know this is slightly off-topic but PN's thread has had enough views. The U.K "Riots" were triggered by a very complex set of back-issues, although Race-alienation and an incresing sense among the youth that they are likely to get away with acts of violence and vandalism only lightly punished were a factor. I'm not sure if this "Fear of our children" sindrome exists in the U.S. The chances of similar riots in America ARE very real, but for very different reasons.
I also wonder if you would see this afterward: "


Britain is one of the most closely "monitored" societies in all of the Western worlds. CCTV, and the like.

I just think they realized that the "watchers" don't have the ability to track and prosecute them all.

But the police-state there is trying. Kicking in doors, grabbing people.

I've said it before here. When the LA riots happened, the proper response was what the Koreans did.

They defended their property, and their livelihood.





"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 8:48 AM

CONCHOBAR71


All good points :) Although the argument can be made that those who are committing violence against another may not necessarily be the norm.

Actions taken against the "Man" or corporate ownings may be considered (rationalization I know..bad bad rationalization) an act of reciprocation, even though that store front owner "may" not be guilty of some transgression, the corporate products and commodities (Gas, Oil, Food, TVs etc..) sold there produced record profit gains for those producers and many people hold extreme resentment against those big companies and those who sell them. It doesn't make it right, but immorality is kind of a homogenous thing, depending on the culture and society.

I know here in NY, there have been several instances where severe price gouging has occurred by gas station owners. Even the Pricechopper Gas rebates (grocery purchases = gas savings) have been changed, manipulated, ignored or played with by the local Pakistani owners (most of our gas stations are owned and operated locally here by men of Pakistani and Middle Eastern descent). It has gotten so bad at times, that I have witnessed fist fights break out when someone calls the owners on it.

If people feel wronged, it becomes less about morality and more about vigilantism.

It's scary actually.



Jayne: "Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 9:34 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Same sort of things happened during Katrina.

You want to get out? Sure, just come by the friendly gas-station and pay 20 bucks a gallon....

then there was the "mayor", using the cops to disarm people. EXACTLY when they NEEDED to be armed...INSTEAD of helping folks evacuate.



I agree. Its scary.

Yet, whenever liberals get out of control, when the cancer of their beliefs begin to rage.. there are always those who stand against the darkness.

Tho I am hopeful that this may always be true, I know it takes simple people willing to fight.




Also, corny as it is.. even Chuck Norris is on board. :)









"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 9:46 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:They defended their property, and their livelihood.


You do realize that in the US you can't use lethal force to defend property. You can only use lethal force when you or others lives are at risk.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 9:49 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


"You do realize that in the US you can't use lethal force to defend property. You can only use lethal force when you or others lives are at risk."

Depends on the state you are in.

Not a native, eh?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 10:06 AM

CONCHOBAR71


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:They defended their property, and their livelihood.


You do realize that in the US you can't use lethal force to defend property. You can only use lethal force when you or others lives are at risk.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act


Title 18, §505. Use of Force in Self-Protection.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.—The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force. —

(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or

(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 507 of this title (relating to use of force for the protection of property); or

(C) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

(B) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

(c) Use of confinement as protective force. — The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.


Title 18, §506. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons.

(a) General rule. — The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title (relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect;

(2) under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

(b) Exceptions.—Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section:

(1) When the actor would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand before using force in self-protection, he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person.

(2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 505 of this title to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way.

(3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the dwelling, or place of work of the other to any greater extent than in his own.

Title 18, §507. Use of Force for the Protection of Property.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property. —The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:

(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:

(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and

(ii)—

(A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or

(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.

(b) Meaning of possession. — For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:

(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.

(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.

(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.

(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force. —

(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:

(i) such request would be useless;

(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.

(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:

(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and

(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).

*(4)(i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:

(A) there has been an entry into the actor’s dwelling;

(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and

(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.

(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:

(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(d) Use of confinement as protective force. — The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

(e) Use of device to protect property. —The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury;

(2) the use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be; and

(3) the device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.

(f) Use of force to pass wrongful obstructor. — The use of force to pass a person whom the actor believes to be intentionally or knowingly and unjustifiably obstructing the actor from going to a place to which he may lawfully go is justifiable, if:

(1) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to obstruct the actor;

(2) the actor is not being obstructed from entry or movement on land which he knows to be in the possession or custody of the person obstructing him, or in the possession or custody of another person by whose authority the obstructor acts, unless the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would not be reasonable to postpone the entry or movement on such land until a court order is obtained; and

(3) the force used is not greater than it would be justifiable if the person obstructing the actor were using force against him to prevent his passage.

*(Chgd. by L.1980, Act 1980-235; eff. 12/19/80.)


Jayne: "Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 10:14 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


I stand corrected.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 10:30 AM

KIRKULES


In Florida if two people steal my car and I shoot one of them, the surviving thief could be charged with their accomplice's murder and I would be within my legal rights.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 10:38 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
In Florida if two people steal my car and I shoot one of them, the surviving thief could be charged with their accomplice's murder and I would be within my legal rights.



That's pretty cool, really.

For once, Florida gets something right.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 10:39 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

The only places where UK-like riots could happen (for longer than a day) are in places like Chicago, NY, California, and Mass.

Typical liberal strongholds that have high unemployment, low morality, and gun control.

Gawd, Wulf, you are so ignorant and say such stupid thing that it's hard NOT to believe you're Raptor's sickpuppy!

We won't have riots in Northern California. What are you going to come up with when we don't? I'm sure you'll have forgotten by then and find something else stupid to say which makes you think you're intelligent and have a grasp on reality. We might well have PROTESTS, especially over in Berserkeley, but not riots.

It would be so lovely if you could see people as people, and not entire states as bastions of one political party or the other. I guess you're just not capable of conceiving of such a possibility, which is part of wht makes you so ridiculous.

Just FYI: As of February of this year, DC, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, New Jersey all rank above California in being liberal according to Gallup ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/146348/Mississippi-Rates-Conservative-Rates
-States.aspx
). We're not even in the top ten.

California ranks below Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alaska, Florida and Maine in divorce rate. Nevada has worse unemployment than we do. In California, there are 5 major restrictions on handguns; Colorado has 7, Connecticut 5, New York 7, Texas and Utah 4. Obviously gun restrictions are much more complex than that, and for a number of states, it's text, not table, but that gives you an idea ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_United_States_(by_stat
e
). I'm not going to spend the time reading or finding more than that, given your mentality, but hey, it looks like "morally" we're doing pretty good (as divorce is the only measure I can think of), we're doing better than Nevada on unemployment and we have less gun control than Colorado and New York (and possibly other states, if I bothered to read further).

I realize this won't stop your blathering about California, but those are the FACTS!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 12:32 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I don't see where the wulfenwhiner gets off complaining about a "police state" that him and his completely enabled, first by not having the guts to stand up and say no, and second by deliberate enablement so long as the right victims were on the wrong end of the bayonet - so forgive me for not being particularly sympathetic to any of his whinin about those bayonets being potentially pointed at him.

That said...

Many large cities in america right now are a goddamn powder keg waiting to happen, and it's got shit to do with left-right politics so much as downright class warfare and corporate exploitation helped along by government in a pretty bi-partisan fashion.

Now, Michigan and Texas, surely are the kinda places where it's prettymuch legal to shoot dead someone on your property who's an imminent threat, which to me makes a whole lot more sense than any other way particularly cause I am usually in a damn wheelchair and my residence has only one entry/exit, so what the hell am I gonna do, run away ? yeeeahhh right.
Sorry, I just don't see "Lay down and die" an appropriate defense strategy - although I am also well aware that even the most clear-cut, fully justifiable shooting will result in a curb stomping, weapon confiscation and about thirty grand in legal bills, which I find every bit as ludicrous as the idea I should just lay down and die rather than shoot some nimrod crashing my door with evil intent.
But that's a side issue, really it is.

Thing here is, there is, and always has been, particularly since 1984, a "plan on the shelf" for using the excuse of civil unrest to perform a coup d'etat, a fascist takeover - you can thank ollie north for that one(1) since he helped write it, or rather, re-write it out of the original plans penned by scoop jackson(2), which were seized and retroactively classified.(3)
Although not after some folk had read them and made copies - what has been seen cannot be unseen.
Anyhow, there's folks in our government just waiting for the excuse, and I can even tell you how that would go.

Either via provacateurs, or just by the fact that our infrastructure itself in most cities is hanging on by a goddamn thread already (at any one time in detroit, there's a couple thousand folk without power, y'all have heard my rants at DTE about that shit), sufficient damage will be done to "justify" shutting off power, water, sewage - and they'll spin it as either a punitive measure or protective depending on what they think they can get away with.
You've NO IDEA how fast that can go badly, medieval siege conditions in an urban environment against folk totally unequipped or prepared to handle it(4) - which leads to excuse sufficient to send in the Dirty Third, which is as you know on homeland security civil unrest pacification duty(5) complete with new APCs and prefab prisons courtesy of KBR/Haliburton(6).

I mean, these preparations haven't even been particularly secret, as I have pointed out each and every one as it happens - but Detroit won't go down so easily, remeber that we've been working our asses off getting urban agriculture up and running, against severe resistance from the Monsanto cronies of the DNR, and the city government, and in our own ways preparing to lessen the blow of infrastructure failure by weather, natural disaster, or intentional shutoff, for a while now, cause only a fool wouldn't see it coming by now - all it waits is the opportunity, and one good spark to set those powder kegs off... I had begun to worry that certain events in the Wisconsin mess mighta done it, thanks be the WI Natty Guard told Walker to piss up a rope that day, and I was even more so over the recall and obvious fuckery in the eight district, which if it comes out via private investigation, still might happen.

But anyhow, the powers that be WANT riots and disorder, some of them are gleefully rubbing their hands together in anticipation even now, at the fruition of plans laid down over the past thirty years to end this farcical charade of democracy and pull the mask off once and for all.

I say we don't give it to em, I say we come at em sideways and ambush them in ways they never ever expected.

(1) - That'd be known as REX84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

(2) - Mind you, this creep was the founding father of the Neocons, which in fact started out as Democrats.

(3) - And Scoop had penned at one time a similar plan to REX84 but shitcanned it as something beyond the bounds of how far he was willing to go, and there were some other papers regarding much of the shit the neocons DID eventually pull, which is what was seized and buried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_Jackson#Jackson_Papers_controversy

(4) - Detroit is not so unprepared as people think, cause over the past couple years these folk have learned to survive without the abusive "help" of the city or county government or their enforcers, and besides that, anyone with half a brain can see this coming if the bastards have the opportunity to put it in motion.

(5) - I wish to hell I was kidding about that - I ain't, and it's unconstitutional as hell, in fact this is the rubicon at which point I ceased ALL support, moral or otherwise for "the troops" cause anyone who'd obey THAT order should be shot at dawn.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

(6) - Again, I wish I was kidding...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/national/04halliburton.html


So basically I sincerely hope it doesn't happen, cause at that point it's time for whatever dumbass codename they have for that plan which has been sitting on the shelf since Ollie wrote it, and updated no doubt repeatedly by the former administration - and then it's time for the last roundup.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19871.htm

Of course, what those assholes fail to realize, is that other people have known, other people have been also laying plans in the other direction, for those same thirty years, and three decades is a damn long time.
Alas that not all of those folk had the same concept or went in the same direction with it due to the very nature of their need to keep such preparations quiet, and as such when the powers that be DO try to enact their little takeover plan, if ever - it's gonna wind up somewhere between a crash and burn at the gate and a complete cluster fuck, at which point... anything can happen.

The important thing for you, I think - is knowing the other sides gameplan, and since they've not been exactly all that keen or willing to hide it, at least the basics of it, knowing allows one to stand against it more effectively.

Of course, there's always the possibility they might start the riots themselves, on purpose, which is to be watched for as well.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 1:18 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
The only places where UK-like riots could happen (for longer than a day) are in places like Chicago, NY, California, and Mass.

Typical liberal strongholds that have high unemployment, low morality, and gun control.

Just in case, tho...

Clean your gun, make sure you have plenty of ammo, food, water, and a secure location.




You mean a secure location from which to riot, right?

After all, you're the one constantly calling for armed revolution. Are you saying it's impossible now, except for the places where the "liberals" might do it?

How odd a stance for you to take. And odder still that you think your beloved "tea party values" are a sign of "low morality".

You are one strange little dude, Wulfboy.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 1:22 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

By morality I meant this: "I don't think its wrong to burn and loot so long as I get mine". Morality DOES play a big role in riots. Do I burn and loot a store, hurt or kill someone, so I can get something that I want (not need)?




But again I point out that you have, on numerous occasions, lobbied for hunting and killing people - the President, Nancy Pelosi, ALL "libs/progs", etc. - just so you can get something you want (a more fascist right-wing militaristic nationalist government), not something you NEED.

Your hypocrisy is showing.

Again.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 1:25 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Same sort of things happened during Katrina.

You want to get out? Sure, just come by the friendly gas-station and pay 20 bucks a gallon....

then there was the "mayor", using the cops to disarm people. EXACTLY when they NEEDED to be armed...INSTEAD of helping folks evacuate.



I agree. Its scary.

Yet, whenever liberals get out of control, when the cancer of their beliefs begin to rage.. there are always those who stand against the darkness.



You mean like the five New Orleans cops just convicted of shooting and killing those unarmed "liberals" for being so out of control in wanting to get out of a flooded New Orleans?

Yeah, they really showed those danged "liberals", didn't they?

Quote:

Tho I am hopeful that this may always be true, I know it takes simple people willing to fight.


Well, you are nothing if not simple, Wulfie. Willing to fight? Not so much.


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 1:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Hell, in Texas I can blow someone away just for tagging my property (vandalism IS covered by our Castle Doctrine). Or even my neighbor's property, if they've asked me to keep an eye on the place.

'Course, thanks to the legislature, I can also carry my guns on any college campus now - but they will NOT let me carry them into the legislature or the governor's office.

Wonder what they're scared of...

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 1:36 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Do I think its possible? Yeah, people are people no matter where you go, no matter what century we're in, no matter their ethnicity or country of origin. So its possible. I hope it doesn't happen here, especially not in my backyard (yeah I know that saying is over used, but you know what I mean here, that's scary stuff). How likely do I think it is? Well in my city I doubt it would come to that but I don't know about other cities. I think most of this discussion is interesting though and that people are talking productively about it which is pretty cool, most of this discussion.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 2:46 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


It's possible. Hell, it's even LIKELY.

Most of America's cities are never much more than one cop beat-down away from these same kinds of riots.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 12, 2011 4:36 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I love how the more moronic elements of the right are blaming this on liberal policy.... any excuse to push an agenda I suppose.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 2:28 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 3:08 AM

DREAMTROVE


Frem,

You cam see their "readiness" all over the satelite picture. The one everyone misses is the most obvious: the real point of the autobahn is to be able to deliber panzers pronto to any trouble spot.


Niki

No, it didn't occur, because it already happened here.

Economic disparity? Please, spare us. What you're looking at is organized crime, with some overtones of racism, but I already spelled his out in the other thread.

Wulf,

Ya missed new orleans, but I see mike already made that point. And detroit.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:46 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


DT, you make communication virtually impossible when you spout idiocy like " the real point of the autobahn is to be able to deliber panzers pronto to any trouble spot". Must TRULY be awful, being you and seeing shadows in every corner, I don't know how you get through the day, honestly I don't!


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 4:58 PM

FREMDFIRMA



He's actually not that far off the mark, strangely enough, Niki - not conventionally, but historically most highway infrastructure, dating back to the days of rome, was initially intended to move large bodies of troops, both our railroad system (Civil War) and our interstate highway system (Eisenhower) were at certain times upgraded for exactly that purpose as well.

Although I kinda doubt moving tanks on it is the current purpose, sure - you still COULD, if you wanted to, and didn't care what it did to the road, either by chewing it up (Tank treads are murder on roads, and when they do parades they use special rubber track blocks which only last a few miles) or by the weight damaging the integrity of the surface material.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 6:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


Frem

Thanks. I was just stating history. The interstate is a pretty clear copy, not surprisingly coming after our inheritance of german engineers.

We don't have panzers, and prefer to dloy personnel carriers, but the deployment of Panzers is not hell on the highway: you don't *drive* the Panzers *on* the highway, you put them on the back of trucks which you then drive trucks on the highway. The fact that military equipment was to be carried on the back of flatbed trucks is given away by the vertical clearance regulations for overpasses.

There's little call for deploykng tanks to the continental US, but there was a lot in nazi germany. Still, there are many types of military deployment which could serve domestic purpose.

For human civilian transportation, the interstate highway system is a terrible one. They only save time when you are travelling across the exact same line, and for the same price you could have gotten a far more efficient railroad system.

Another curious spec for the system is that curves be optimized as banked for 90 mph traffic.


Niki

Paranoia is seeing threats which are not there. The condition of not seeing threats which actually are there falls under polyanna syndrome.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 7:11 PM

FREMDFIRMA



They call those "hemmits" or something DT, and they still screw up the road cause they're too goddamn heavy and damage its integrity that way.

As for APCs, while it's not been so public, them bastards up there at Grayling been playin with the new ones DESIGNED for domestic use, damn things even have turn signals on em, for cryin out loud.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Damn I hate being right, while not utility infrastructure, this particular bit of bullshit was brought to my attention recently.

SF transit blocks cellphones to disrupt protest
http://news.yahoo.com/sf-transit-blocks-cellphones-disrupt-protest-180
916272.html


Certainly a first amendment issue, and IMHO also fraud/theft by depriving people of service they paid for, beyond which that might have impinged upon 911 access so it's also a safety issue.

Little known fact, ANY cellphone, even one with no service connected to it, no minutes on it, so long as it has power, *will* connect to 911 if dialed, making even otherwise useless cellphones a handy emergency device, just so you know.

Anyhows, looks like SF Transit took a page from foreign dictators, and that'll work even less well here cause for damn sure GeekFarm *already* had available cell-frequency repeaters in anticipation of just this sort of eventuality.

They do need a civil engineer for certain other preparation-projects, but the only one I know is an old russian guy who lives in some podunk town - he's pretty cool, although I thought him a bit loony for travelling 200 miles to Moscow just to get the crap beat out of him by their police...
He's openly homosexual, which is something still kinda frowned upon over there, but in his home village nobody will mess with him over it cause he's the guy who keeps the power and water up and running - but he felt the need to stand up for it even if it meant getting his ass kicked, meh.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:18 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


That San Fransisco thing about the phones is rutted up, such an Alliance thing to do. Yuck.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL