The 82nd Airborne Division was sent to Detroit in 1967.

We all know what is going to happen if Obama loses. The Rodney King riots were childs play...

What a coincidence that we will have a standing "crowd control" brigaded just in time! Looks like the govt doesn't think Obama is going to win, either.

This is actually very disturbing news, the use of combat troops for civilian crowd control never ends well.

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

We all know what is going to happen if Obama loses. The Rodney King riots were childs play...

What a coincidence that we will have a standing "crowd control" brigaded just in time! Looks like the govt doesn't think Obama is going to win, either.

Oh please.  No one is rioting if Obama loses, except for maybe a few stinky, dirty, dreadlock-wearing, white hippies.   The kind of people who riot don't vote.  They could not care less about Obama.

Ok, so people riot when the Detroit Pistons win a basketball game but won't if Obama loses?

Wanna bet on it?

I think if there's a whiff anywhere of Diebold hijinks, or any other fuckery, there will be rioting. 

It would be scattered and localized.  I don't think it's possible in this country as it is now for any rioting to become major--shut down a city, for instance, or interfere significantly with "normal" life at large.

orangeplus wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

Is that constitutional? Can we have armies inside the US? Or am I thinking of Rome again?

Used to be not legal. Law passed after and because of the civil war, the posse comitatus act, said you couldn't use the military within the borders of the US except in time of insurrection (didn't include the Natty Guard, obviously.) Posse Comitatus was functionally repealed by the Patriot Act.

Really? Do you have anything that explains that? I'm not arguing with you; it's interesting and I hadn't heard it before.

Yes there will be localized hijinks by all as there always are. No, there will be no race riots.

That will not stop some though. I almost fell over laughing at the regular pundit on Fox last night as he made the case that there is no racism within Republican voters or a campaign strategy to use race bias. All the while in the very same breath he stated that their would be widespread race riots if Obama loses.

Section 1076, which allows the president to:

“...employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to...

Restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States..., where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order;

Suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy...”

that language is actually from the 2007 Defense Appropriation, the Patriot Act has similar language but is more tightly constrained.

and in case anyone is afraid I am taking things out of context, here is the entire section (1076):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c … W:e939907:

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.


(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:
331'.


(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.

(b) Provision of Supplies, Services, and Equipment-

(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 152 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies

`(a) Provision Authorized- In any situation in which the President determines to exercise the authority in section 333(a)(1)(A) of this title, the President may direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.

`(b) Covered Supplies, Services, and Equipment- The supplies, services, and equipment provided under this section may include food, water, utilities, bedding, transportation, tentage, search and rescue, medical care, minor repairs, the removal of debris, and other assistance necessary for the immediate preservation of life and property.

`(c) Limitations- (1) Supplies, services, and equipment may be provided under this section--

`(A) only to the extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession concerned are unable to provide such supplies, services, and equipment, as the case may be; and

`(B) only until such authorities, or other departments or agencies of the United States charged with the provision of such supplies, services, and equipment, are able to provide such supplies, services, and equipment.

`(2) The Secretary may provide supplies, services, and equipment under this section only to the extent that the Secretary determines that doing so will not interfere with military preparedness or ongoing military operations or functions.

`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Authorities- The provision of supplies, services, or equipment under this section shall not be subject to the provisions of section 403(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b(c)).'.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`2567. Supplies, services, and equipment: provision in major public emergencies'.

(c) Conforming Amendment- Section 12304(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking `No unit' and all that follows through `subsection (b),' and inserting `Except to perform any of the functions authorized by chapter 15 or section 12406 of this title or by subsection (b), no unit or member of a reserve component may be ordered to active duty under this section'.

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-09-24 15:46:59)

Thank you O+ for bringing this up. I'm surprised that some of you are unaware of the emasculation of posse comitatus.  It started with the War On Some Drugs, but the Patriot Act has pretty much nailed the coffin. 

Now back to the race riots!

George Orr wrote:

I think if there's a whiff anywhere of Diebold hijinks, or any other fuckery, there will be rioting. 

It would be scattered and localized.  I don't think it's possible in this country as it is now for any rioting to become major--shut down a city, for instance, or interfere significantly with "normal" life at large.

Which is simply what I'm saying. To say, "there will be no riots" is laughable, at best. As I pointed out, many cities experience riots (i.e. huge throngs of people burning cars and throwing shit at cops) when their sports teams WIN championships. To think an Obama loss wouldn't inspire as much emotion is, again, laughable.

Also, the modus operandi, if you will, of the Democratic party (at least for the last 2 elections) is to immediately claim hijinks when they lose. To assume they would simply say, "good game", in a loss, is silly.

I'll be back here come November to laugh at HKG.... again...

HKG, the stinky White hippies will get stoned as usual and fart lots of ramen noodle gas the way they would any other day.  Most of them are too passive and befuddled to give more than an occasional thought to politics.  Stinky hippies are like skunks, they really aren’t a danger as long as you don’t hassle them.

The White Radicals have long since morphed into smug hypocritical self-centered yuppies.  They will tsk tsk the fact that they live in such a racist country when they run into each other at Trader Joes and Whole Foods.  They will ask their kids’ mostly white private schools in their White suburbs to make sure the kids really “get it” when MLK day rolls around next January.

Negroes are dangerous destructive animals.  A natural disaster, football win, or “insult to the community” are an excuse to engage in looting.  There definitely will be riots if Obama loses and probably destructive “celebrations” if he wins.  Anyone who lives in an area that has a “diverse” population should make preparations to defend their homes and families.

"1.  You don't give the stinky hippies enough credit...remember the WTO riots...they were surprisingly well organized for a bunch of unemployed deadweights."

I am sorry to say this HK but...You know, you might just be the most ignorant Lawyer I have ever met.  I knew several of the organizers, and participants.  They on the whole were as educated as you, and certainly are far more dedicated to community than you have certainly ever portrayed, and all were/are employed.  I think you have the lawyers disease, which in the end knows no colour except greed/green. 

Your comments are basically stupid, and not very well thought out.

Dmtdust wrote:

"1.  You don't give the stinky hippies enough credit...remember the WTO riots...they were surprisingly well organized for a bunch of unemployed deadweights."

I am sorry to say this HK but...You know, you might just be the most ignorant Lawyer I have ever met.  I knew several of the organizers, and participants.  They on the whole were as educated as you, and certainly are far more dedicated to community than you have certainly ever portrayed, and all were/are employed.  I think you have the lawyers disease, which in the end knows no colour except greed/green. 

Your comments are basically stupid, and not very well thought out.

Amen.

I've seen you-tube videos where "persons of color" are already celebrating Obamas victory talking about reparations and how "whitey is really in for it now".

If you don't think poor black folk aren't on-board with Obama,  you're fooling yourself. Maybe they weren't big on him at first, but they are down like a clown, now. When he loses, there will be burning buildings and cars and some looting, too.

I'll be sure and say, "I told you so", yet again, HKG!!! :)

hehehehe

note: actually, in my book, the election is tightening up in a big way. Financial chaos works really well for the left. It is anyone's game if this there isn't something major to pretend to show the problem is solved.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-09-26 01:15:41)

pALEPHx wrote:

So... How many people here actually believe the mildly conspiracy theorist expectation that something 9-11ish is going to occur in the next thirty days?

We can only hope. Please Grod, give me a reason to watch the news and chuckle.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

We can only hope. Please Grod, give me a reason to watch the news and chuckle.

Careful what you wish. Borders mean squat.

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

We can only hope.

Are you accustomed to referring to yourself in the collective, or are you just trying to validate your expectation?

We don't know yet.

pALEPHx wrote:

So... How many people here actually believe the mildly conspiracy theorist expectation that something 9-11ish is going to occur in the next thirty days? I mean, seriously expect this to happen. Is not the banking crisis enough, we need death or something to secure a McCain presidency? Because that's pretty much the bottom line, here. Those cynical enough to presume the current regime would somehow manufacture a horrible event just to secure votes in the election; that's what an 'October surprise' means to me.

I won't lie. I've been half expecting something to happen, but I personally think it's already happening. And, to be frank, I think the Republicans would be happy to dump both the war and the bank/mortgage bailouts into the lap of a Democrat. Whoever gets what's happening NOW is going to inherit a world of shit. Does that world really need to get exponentially worse, to look like a ploy for conservative occupation of the Executive Branch, before people are cowed into voting out of fear? Please, that's what the 2004 election was about.

Isn't it true that 2 of the recently-failed and bailed out companies' former CEO's are on Obama's election team? (after getting that nice golden parachute deal)?

So, if I get this right, 2 CEO's cash out of major financial organizations, go to work for Obama, then those same organizations fail, and Republicans are to blame??!?!?

Oh silly me, OF COURSE THEY ARE. They are always to blame for anything negative that happens (no matter who is in charge of making the laws to prevent this sort of thing).

hehehehehe

ptooey wrote:

Isn't it true that 2 of the recently-failed and bailed out companies' former CEO's are on Obama's election team? (after getting that nice golden parachute deal)?

Which of the two companies?  Do you have names? 

The nosedives have taken place in the last two weeks--so Obama's "election team" has absorbed two EXTREMELY HIGH-PROFILE former CEO's in the last two weeks?  Do you by any chance have their names or anything?

Oh, wait--I forgot who I'm talking to.  Never mind, then.

Last edited by George Orr (2008-09-26 10:28:06)

George Orr wrote:

ptooey wrote:

Isn't it true that 2 of the recently-failed and bailed out companies' former CEO's are on Obama's election team? (after getting that nice golden parachute deal)?

Which of the two companies?  Do you have names? 

The nosedives have taken place in the last two weeks--so Obama's "election team" has absorbed two EXTREMELY HIGH-PROFILE former CEO's in the last two weeks?  Do you by any chance have their names or anything?

Oh, wait--I forgot who I'm talking to.  Never mind, then.

I never said the CEO's joined in the past few weeks? I said former CEO's of the companies that are bailed out are working for Obama. I said they got out BEFORE this all happened (with big checks, I bet).

Oh, names? How about Jim Johnson, former ceo of Fannie Mae? (guess what, I bet you just now remembered who you were talking to! Perhaps it was the mad cow? Here, let me get that egg off your face, old girl!). You're starting to sound like HKG... Anyway, Jim was the guy Obama tapped to find him a VP.

How about another name. How about Frank Raines. The guy who advises Obama on part of his economic policy (because Obama obviously doesn't even understand economics). Who is Frank Raines? Another former Fannie Mae CEO. Frank made a buttload of money, all while Fannie Mae was pulling off some financial fraud. Frank got out while the getting was good (with lots of cash, no less) and then Fannie collapsed.

hehehehehe...

Remember who you are talking to now? Maybe its time to up the meds...

Man, George, to leave yourself this wide open to be spanked by someone with such little grasp of the English language.... Must definitely be the mad cow. Either way, you're slipping in your old age.

There is just one word for this. I begins with "p" and ends with "wned".

have a nice day

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-09-26 11:46:00)

HK said:

'Fuck you, stinky dirty hippie.

By the way, did it ever occur to you that I was playing devil's advocate? I don't see you defending black people, many of whom are middle class and would never riot under any circumstance.  That's exactly the problem that I have with you and your ilk...you're so fucking paternalistic and self-righteous.'

Well, I may have deserved that Fuck You, because the use of the word stupid was unkind. 

For your info, there were plenty of black folk, as well as other ethnic groups as well at the WTO event. (going by photos and what friends/relatives said) 

Devil's advocate?  You've been throwing that dirty hippie slur around quite frequently to use that dodge, and just because I am not 'vocal' doesn't imply that I am not supportive of blacks, and their aspirations, as if the situation now days presents a cohesive block.

So unruffle your feathers, and here it is:  'I apologize for calling you stupid, but hedge on the lawyer insult, 'kay?'

Okay, I understand your point, and again, pardon that remark I made.  I got heated about it as I knew several people got the crap beat out of them at the WTO by the cops, and knowing them, they were not provoking the piglets. 

There has been uprisiings by whites (in company with blacks and indigenous folk), time and again... I suggest you read Zinn's history of the US.

I think it could reach a tipping point again though HK...

Dmtdust wrote:

Okay, I understand your point, and again, pardon that remark I made.  I got heated about it as I knew several people got the crap beat out of them at the WTO by the cops, and knowing them, they were not provoking the piglets. 

There has been uprisiings by whites (in company with blacks and indigenous folk), time and again... I suggest you read Zinn's history of the US.

I think it could reach a tipping point again though HK...

I have read Zinn. 

Unfortunately, politicians have done an excellent job of distracting the masses by bringing bullshit issues like abortion and ghey buttsecks to the forefront.  People get more upset over two men having sex than men raping a fucking company and all it workers.

Our priorities are fucked.

tojo -- Rush Limbaugh is still telling his listeners that Obama isn't even black...that he's arab.  Facts mean nothing to the right.