It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, How's That Police State Working Out For Ya?

page: 2
29
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ATODASO
the emerging police state is not about better protection, it's about making a buck.


None of your thread substantiated this outrageous claim. People love to hear about how the use of military arms is a government trick to make money through arms supplier bribes and other lobbying, but its bull crap. Give me one example of a politician taking a bribe from an arms manufacturer to start a conflict in order to generate revenue for the manufacturer. Go ahead. Show me proof of such a transaction. Show me a verbal transcript between a politician and an arms manufacturer ceo. Go ahead.

This is a stupid, false idea that doesn't do anyone any good. All you're doing by saying this is providing a false reason not to trust the government. All that does is create false paranoia and divide our country and promote chaos. Its crap. I'm not saying you shouldn't question authority, but this goes too far. And it is completely unsubstantiated.
edit on 15-8-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

jeez, bud, whaddaya got against capitalism?! lol

no, but seriously, it's a HUGE industry. since 2001, over 34 billion has been handed out in grants to local pd's to purchase military equipment. direct sales aren't as common as DOD auctions (put those grants right back in the old wallet lol). if you don't think heavy hitters like lockheed martin and blackhawk industries are deploying flotillas full of lobbyists, you're not paying attention to how your country is currently being run. practically nothing about who sells what to pd's has been legislated, because no one saw the need until recently.

crime has gone down, while militarization has gone up. that eliminates protection (barring future post-collapse scenarios), leaving profit or toy lust standing as highest ranking motives.

anyone who's curious about why i suggest profit over protection should check out the following articles/stats.

www.thedailybeast.com...

www.commondreams.org...

www.fema.gov...

militarization.apps.cironline.org...

www.theguardian.com...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...





edit on 15-8-2014 by ATODASO because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ATODASO

Of course arms manufacturers profit from the government buying weaponry. But that's not my point. My point is, the government doesn't profit from the government buying weaponry. They lose money. Unless you can provide an instance of a politician receiving a bribe. If not, then you have nothing.

Therefore, the only way the government benefits from buying weaponry is to ensure national security and to promote order. And that is a good thing. Using this false idea that the government is starting wars to make a buck makes national security seem like a bad thing to the ignorant people who would believe it. This puts us all at risk. United we stand. Divided we fall.

I'm not saying that the government isn't overly intrusive. But, I am saying they aren't killing Americans for money.
edit on 15-8-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-8-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
double post
edit on 15-8-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: ATODASO

Of course arms manufacturers profit from the government buying weaponry. But that's not my point. My point is, the government doesn't profit from the government buying weaponry. They lose money.


unless the grants go right back into the kitty, as i indicated above. also, given the revolving door relationship between corporate arms dealers, military personnel, and government officials, i'd say a lot of folks pad their portfolio out of these domestic deals, even if the government as a whole loses money on them (which it probably doesn't).


Unless you can provide an instance of a politician receiving a bribe. If not, then you have nothing.


yes, i am l33t as hell, and totes have that transcript kicking around on a thumbdrive somewhere in my secret lair. lol nope, i just think you can extrapolate some reasonable conclusions from the data. if that data, which includes sales stats and money trails doesn't give you the same picture, that's your business.


Therefore, the only way the government benefits from buying weaponry is to ensure national security and to promote order. And that is a good thing. Using this false idea that the government is starting wars to make a buck makes national security seem like a bad thing to the ignorant people who would believe it. This puts us all at risk.


sure, it MIGHT be a good thing, if all that equipment came with extensive training and oversight. but it doesn't, and then you get crap like ferguson.


I'm not saying that the government isn't overly intrusive. But, I am saying they aren't killing Americans for money.


maybe it just isn't as lucrative as killing brown people in other countries.

yet.


edit on 15-8-2014 by ATODASO because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ATODASO

yes, i am l33t as hell, and totes have that transcript kicking around on a thumbdrive somewhere in my secret lair. lol


Yeah, I knew you didn't have any such proof. Because it doesn't exist. With the hundreds of revelations being brought up by Snowden, anonymous, wikileaks, other hackers, and political rivals, you'd think there would be something. But there's nothing. Because nothing of this sort exists outside of the paranoid, conspiracy theorists imagination.


nope, i just think you can extrapolate some reasonable conclusions from the data. if that data, which includes sales stats and money trails doesn't give you the same picture, that's your business.


Except its not reasonable! The government SPENDS money on weapons. They don't profit. At most, money is recirculated and they break even in a round about way through things like job creation and the economic benefits of helping American infrastructure. But they DON'T profit. And it is completely insane and illogical to think that any politician is evil enough to think that re-circulation of money is a good reason for them to risk American lives. Its recirculation at the most, not profit. No one is going to risk American lives for re-circulation. Its a stupid idea.

Not only that, but our defense spending consists, in some part, of imports. They sure as hell aren't going to create a war to aid foreign arms manufacturers.


maybe it just isn't as lucrative as killing brown people in other countries.

yet.


You drank the whole pitcher of kool aid, didnt you?



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

You drank the whole pitcher of kool aid, didnt you?


i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but i'd encourage you to look into the matter further, starting with the links i posted. i know there are a lot of good people who want to see u.s. citizens safe on the homefront, but the people responsible for wholesaling LRADs and "less-lethal" ammo to your local p.d. aren't among them.

peace.


edit on 15-8-2014 by ATODASO because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ATODASO

originally posted by: smithjustinb

You drank the whole pitcher of kool aid, didnt you?


i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, but i'd encourage you to look into the matter further, starting with the links i posted.


I have looked into the matter. None of the links you posted prove any government malice. They are irrelevant. Just as you looked into it and didn't find any concrete evidence of government officials receiving profits directly from arms manufacturers, neither have I. Nor has anyone.


i know there are a lot of good people who want to see u.s. citizens safe on the homefront, but the people responsible for wholesaling LRADs and sound weapons to your local p.d. aren't among them.

peace.


Maybe not. But, if they were involved in manufacturing a reason to go to war, the government would not protect them from prosecution. They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

The British government sells weapons to foreign country's so I doubt the USA does not. Many firms that manufacture arms have to have government licenses to get their goods off country to the buyer so the government is basically the silent partner courtesy of the law.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

I have looked into the matter. None of the links you posted prove any government malice.


i don't need to prove malice, which requires a value judgement that i recognize as being beyond my purview. as far as i am concerned, for the purposes of this thread, i need to prove that

a. corporate entities so thoroughly enmeshed with the dod that it's downright incestuous are making a lot of money off domestic sales.

b. that the equipment being sold is being used improperly.

and that c. the equipment is unnecessary in the scenarios in which it is being used.

if anything, the policy makers just walked blindly into this by declaring a series of wars on concepts instead of countries. "war on drugs". "war on terrorism". it provides a domestic enemy that can never be defeated, and sets the stage for a siege mindset on the part of the police.

in short, i don't have to prove malice, just incompetence and profit motive.


They are irrelevant. Just as you looked into it and didn't find any concrete evidence of government officials receiving profits directly from arms manufacturers, neither have I. Nor has anyone.


oh jeez, not while actually in office, or at least not in any way that would be traceable. you give up being ceo of halliburton when you become vice president, but you sure as # don't give up your shares.


Maybe not. But, if they were involved in manufacturing a reason to go to war, the government would not protect them from prosecution. They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.


i don't know what to do with this "bribes" herring you keep chucking at my head. bribes aren't necessary in a well-functioning plutocracy.


edit on 15-8-2014 by ATODASO because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb




They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.


so i take you believe the government and anyone who works for it is completely malevolent.......they have the best interests of the people....can you provide any evidence of this occurring ?



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ATODASO

in short, i don't have to prove malice, just incompetence.


Yes you do have to prove malice. You said, "they're doing this to make a buck." "They" being the ones who authorized the military campaign. That would be malice. Not incompetence. And you need to substantiate it.



oh jeez, not while actually in office, or at least not in any way that would be traceable. you give up being ceo of halliburton when you become vice president, but you sure as # don't give up your shares.


Interesting, but, we're talking about weapons manufacturers, not oil companies.


i don't know what to do with this "bribes" herring you keep chucking at my head. bribes aren't necessary in a well-functioning plutocracy.


Any form of direct profit for politicians from weapons manufacturers will suffice.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: smithjustinb




They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.


so i take you believe the government and anyone who works for it is completely malevolent.......they have the best interests of the people....can you provide any evidence of this occurring ?


I'm assuming you meant, "benevolent". No I don't think they all are that selfless. Can I provide and example of a selfless act? Of course. Can I provide evidence of a selfish act? Certainly. But, what I can't do is provide evidence of politicians risking American lives in order to directly make a profit from a weapons manufacturer. Because it doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, anyway. The OP needs to prove that politicians are directly profiting from weapons manufacturers.
edit on 15-8-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: smithjustinb




They don't have anything to gain from doing so unless they are taking bribes. And, so far, you have failed to show me any evidence of this occurring.


so i take you believe the government and anyone who works for it is completely malevolent.......they have the best interests of the people....can you provide any evidence of this occurring ?


I'm assuming you meant, "benevolent". No I don't think they all are that selfless. Can I provide and example of a selfless act? Of course. Can I provide evidence of a selfish act? Certainly. But, what I can't do is provide evidence of politicians risking American lives in order to directly make a profit from a weapons manufacturer. Because it doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, anyway. The OP needs to prove that politicians are directly profiting from weapons manufacturers.




um benevolent...yeah whoops...
.....politicians ..hmm i doubt very much they care where the money is coming from as long as it does....money can make people do things and turn a blind eye quite easily..

you are putting alot of faith there into people that you have no idea what actually makes them tick



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

Yes you do have to prove malice.


no, i really don't. i just have to prove profit motive, and i have to my own satisfaction, if not yours.



"They" being the ones who authorized the military campaign.


what military campaign is that? don't you mean "civil disturbance"? lol


Any form of direct profit for politicians from weapons manufacturers will suffice.


k, bud, i'm opting out of the "who's on first" exchange this is devolving into. you have yourself a good night.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
All I want to know is where is the videos. There seems to be more and more witnesses but no video in this day and age?? No I think there's video but it doesn't match the witnesses story and the police know sooner or later it'll show up.

Even without they shouldn't have attacked the cop as they admitted to






posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mikell

there's a glut of footage from the livefeeds, as well as photos distributed on twitter and the like.

this thread is a great resource:

An Army in Ferguson Tonight



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ATODASO

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Let's see how that "no more free military gear" bill works out.
Bet the price of something (court,traffic infraction,taxes, various fees) goes up considerably if it passes


offset it with a donut tax.



I might suggest starting at the top. I think we need a political liars fee due and payable to the public, you could pretty much eliminate taxes at that point and watch the shift in financial power leave elected positions and into the peoples pockets overnight. A donut tax would net you thousands everyday on a 50¢ donut. A liars fee would stand to make millions every hour, the shear number of politicians at federal, state, and local levels could provide free healthcare to north and south America, saving illegals the trouble of coming here in the first place.

Just the calculation problems for someone like dunkin donuts would create huge paperwork problems on a local level with a sliding scale for donut holes to bear claws.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace

haha, awesome.



actually, it looks like state-level politicians are the best bet for checking this kind of excess.



posted on Aug, 15 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ATODASO
a reply to: MarlinGrace

haha, awesome.



actually, it looks like state-level politicians are the best bet for checking this kind of excess.


Ha they could start right here in Virginia, I could retire in short order if I wasn't already retired. Well maybe semi-retired, was getting bored. They have the previous governor in court with his wife. Cha-Ching if it were only possible. What a pair these two were. The new one isn't any better. Again I say the only difference between republicans and democrats is the spelling. But a liars fee could make them cash cows...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join