Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: derfreebie
You can't mandate harmony any more than legislate trust.

Well, that was a way to go to finally get to a somewhat relevant comment to the actual work of the Task Force.

I'm not sure about "legislating trust" either ... but do believe that LEOs have a chance to win back their communities.

Is that your only connection between your OP and the facts of the matter?

My only contention is that any PR problem starts as a local phenomena,
and is unlikely to find a solution with a centralized, "uniform" schema
of mediation if the sole root source is determined to be novel.

In the past, the infusion of federal presence in local (PR especially)
matters creates a new, even more antagonistic set of dynamics.

As a labor union steward of some duration I can attest to negotiations
being more strained after that infusion; with an eventual impasse and
almost always controversy resulting in recrimination if not breakdowns.
Unfortunately time honored negotiation strategies and even individual
initiatives at the tables are often fruitless against posturing sides.

This could end well if the mission restricted itself to improved PR.
I and surely anyone would welcome assistance from afar and above on
an individual case basis if individually requested .. but the EO and
the task force recommendations will invariably indicate sweeping and
largely ineffective solutions for individual and virtually unique problems.

The one-size fits all solution was, in the case of Ferguson's decaying
PR, putting the Guard in to protect the police from a melee, but afford
no crowd control. In the peacekeeping or building regimen, my prime
concern would be the benefit of mostly watching a unique PR interface
decay without a uniform solution sufficiently robust to avert it. Finally,
few negotiators in my acquaintance are one-size guys. They themselves
could get hamstrung from the mission statement by their own rules.

EDIT:: And now to my troubled sleep; and fitful dreaming of public policy
in an ugly collision with the human condition. Pass the bicarbonate of Hoda.

a reply to: Gryphon66 I didn't say anything about Obama and the police. I just made a comment about the militarization of police, something very new in the US.
My comment about Obama is very factual. There IS a page to report those who don't agree.
Typical overreaction and generalization. Everything I said is fact. Prove it isn't.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
Police departments throughout the nation are experiencing financial difficulties. Hell, some departments have been already been disbanded. Pensions are running dry, benefits are going away, pay is not increasing and even decreasing in some cases.

The federal government approaches departments that are on the brink of financial ruin and offers aid in the form of grants and equipment.

In return for the help, the departments have to follow federal guidelines, regulations, oversight etc., or be "cut off" financially. A little quid pro quo.

I am not saying it will result in a federal takeover of law enforcement, or it's Obama's "plan," but to pretend that the possibility doesn't exist, or has never happened before, is ignorant.

"Management gets the kind of union they deserve so if you treat people badly, the union gets more militant"

-Chuck Wexler
President's task force on policing

He is saying that, if the public sector union does not get what it wants, it will become more "militant".

"Management" is the civilian authority (aka civilians).

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: derfreebie

So, still no evidence then, just your pearly wisdom?

Fair enough. Should we ask for a move to the HOAX bin?

What was that about "thought police" again?

a reply to: derfreebie

They come from every state to find
Some dreams were meant to be declined
Tell the man what did you have in mind
What have you come to do?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: derfreebie

And how did you know I had the last bowl out of the two gallon pot?
And had a nightmare about getting stabbed a lot of times by dogface
guards? And thread drift by the OP usually compels him to hari-kiri
for the dishonor? (note to self: Don't jazz the last bowl with more
BLACK chipotle.)
Thanks Randy I haven't heard that in a long time. I need a hot
chocolate and a 1/4 pound of Velveeta to put this $#!^ out.

Thanks for checking in, but I'm almost a dead guy.... pre-stinkin

a reply to: derfreebie

Wow, that post is legible!

So, you're saying that, in your experience, Federal involvement in local matters often makes them more complicated?

See, that's a fair statement that seems to me to have some factual support!

Much different than the allegations in your OP and sources about Obama federalizing all local and state police into a national force (ala Nazi Brownshirts).

Has your mind changed as the thread progressed?

originally posted by: tadlem43
a reply to: Gryphon66 I didn't say anything about Obama and the police. I just made a comment about the militarization of police, something very new in the US.
My comment about Obama is very factual. There IS a page to report those who don't agree.
Typical overreaction and generalization. Everything I said is fact. Prove it isn't.

Thanks for clarifying what you MEANT.

Here again is what you SAID.

originally posted by: tadlem43
A great example of this is Boston. One thing that has always bothered me is during the Boston bombing, the people were told to stay in their houses because one wounded 19 year old was on the loose. The streets were filled with armored trucks with turrets and guns on top and police (?) dressed in military garb...and all of the people obeyed and thought it was a 'good thing'.
One other thought, since he became president, he has had a page on his website that asks you to report those who disagree with him and his policies, you know, so that they can be 'educated'. If all of this, plus what has been stated here, doesn't sound like Hitler, then I don't know what does! We need to wake up NOW!

So "a great example of this is Boston." An example of what? The contention of the thread you're posting in?

What is that? That this Task Force is some sort of Federal takeover of State and local police forces? That this Federalization is going to result in some sort of brutish, hyper-militarized force that will be used to enforce the President's will?

So you give an example of police abuse and overreach in Boston, followed up by a tangential comment that Obama is trying to 'educate' anyone who disagrees with him, which sounds to you just like Hitler!

Yeah, no one would ever connect those two statements; how silly!

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: derfreebie

So, still no evidence then, just your pearly wisdom?

Fair enough. Should we ask for a move to the HOAX bin?

What was that about "thought police" again?

1. ATS has specific rules against posting threads that are patently untrue and have no basis in fact.

2. This comment is apparently nursing hurt feelings from some other matter. If you support muddying the quality of ATS discussion with baseless, dishonest, propagandizing ... just say so. No need to be coy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I sort of thought of it as snide myself.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

I sort of thought of it as snide myself.

Great quality content!

How would you say that relates to the supposed federalization of State and local police forces alleged in the OP that has no basis in fact?

Or is the argument that, since "opinions" require no logical basis in actual provable evidence, this fantasy nightmare scenario is just a bunch of folks musing about what might be true ...

Pfft.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just picking on you for trying to avoid engaging me directly in the thread.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just picking on you for trying to avoid engaging me directly in the thread.

Did you direct something regarding the topic to me and I missed it?

Kindly direct me toward anything on-topic and I'll be glad to respond to you!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you saying that you think the Office of the President of the United States would be rendered neutered if executive orders didn't exist? I sincerely hope not--the (generic) president could do the job just fine without executive orders, but if you feel so strongly about them, then would you support a constitutional amendment specifying them as part of the president's authorities? I sure wouldn't.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you saying that you think the Office of the President of the United States would be rendered neutered if executive orders didn't exist? I sincerely hope not--the (generic) president could do the job just fine without executive orders, but if you feel so strongly about them, then would you support a constitutional amendment specifying them as part of the president's authorities? I sure wouldn't.

Did I say that? Nope.

Does the Constitution strictly outline the President's powers? Yep.

Again, a valid EO does one of two things: 1) operates on an enumerated power of the President or 2) operates on a delegated power of the President (from the Legislative.)

Every President has used Executive Orders. Here's a loaded question for you ... do you think the Emancipation Proclamation should be reversed?

The Right's current obsession with Mr. Obama's is obviously and plainly political.

However, if any Order of Mr. Obama is truly out-of-line, then the matter should be taken to the Supreme Court, which you may remember is the arbiter in our system of government as to the Constitutionality of actions.

I submit that the Republicans don't carry the courage of their convictions. If they believe Obama is acting tyrannically, take it to Court. Why wouldn't they do that?

Because then, if the Court didn't agree, they could no longer wail and cry about every Executive Order.

The system ALREADY has checks and balances. There is no need for new law.

a reply to: beezzer

Can only star your post once...

Lol for what? Issuing less executive orders than George W? You people don't have a leg to stand on. Just a bunch of delusions and made up lies from the right

a reply to: derfreebie

Touches exposed nerves with Obama abstracts.

originally posted by: damwel
Lol for what? Issuing less executive orders than George W? You people don't have a leg to stand on. Just a bunch of delusions and made up lies from the right

It's the quality (or lack thereof) that counts.

And the damage effects.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: derfreebie

Wow, that post is legible!

So, you're saying that, in your experience, Federal involvement in local matters often makes them more complicated?

See, that's a fair statement that seems to me to have some factual support!

Much different than the allegations in your OP and sources about Obama federalizing all local and state police into a national force (ala Nazi Brownshirts).

Has your mind changed as the thread progressed?

Not that closed-minded on this matter, nor most others.. as the
thread progressed many have checked in with more info, yourself
included. This can almost always focus the research to a different
and admittedly more isolated area. I stand more often than not
corrected and not too beat up... and rather suffer a couple of bruises
than step into a deeper hole later.

I've stated earlier in the thread more superficially... this thread is
the only one in almost exactly seven years here I've started: that
elicited five to six times the flags as usual. It's not like I hit oil or
anything-- but the issue as hot-button as it is for several in this
thread have had to do with preconceived truths. Sometimes that
amounts to ignorance, but the General always said that could be
fixed.

I'll admit to having several of my own PCNs over that posting period
that were inaccurate, and it's not about right or wrong... more
like accurate perception. You and others adjusted mine, and I
appreciate and am grateful for it whether we disagree or not on
the key points of this or anything else.

I never came here for potential popularity--- I gravitated here
because the posting population is probably one of the best informed
groups on the planet. With truth as rare a commodity, this site is
better than a TS card with a big number and room in the elevator.

Back strictly to the thread, and to address your last directed post..
An announcement from the podium that BO is promoting a "bigger,
more powerful civilian and internal force" than our standing
army portends all kinds of potential mischief. Then we take a look
around, I do that slow and careful lately. Watch with me, they could
change your mind-- even though that's a stretch of the thread too.
It doesn't matter what color the shirts are, just who the wearers
are working for, and to what end.