`.....Obama Wants Police Officers to Have 'Softer` Looking' Uniforms`

[LongTermGuy]

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama banned the sale of certain military-style equipment to police departments.

`Brian Kilmeade reported on "The Kelly File" that Obama also thinks that police officers should have "softer looking" uniforms.

Kilmeade explained that Obama thinks that police officers are "making things worse" when they show up to inner city communities wearing military-style equipment and riot gear.

"They're concerned about the helmet. They're concerned about the shield. It's sending the wrong message," Kilmeade stated. "I used to think from the civilian point of view that that would be a reason not to riot, because the police were ready and ready to act."

Obama commissioned a review of the equipment programs last year after protests in Ferguson, Mo., over the shooting death of an 18-year-old black man by a police officer.

Kilmeade told Megyn Kelly that this is "unbelievable" and that if he were a police officer, he wouldn't show up to the next riot. `

*Watch the full video at the above link below...


Obama Wants Police Officers to Have 'Softer Looking' Uniforms (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/21/barack-obama-wants-police-officers-have-softer-looking-uniforms)

[LongTermGuy]

http://cdn3.volusion.com/s75me.p9hsq/v/vspfiles/photos/FL-138-K-2.jpg?1330523962http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/416EHwjQ2uL._SY300_.jpg


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=246766&stc=1&d=1432320578

[Jeff]

Obama is going to find a problem no matter what they wear say or do, hell he would have a problem if they wore a tux. It has nothing to do with the police other than they are a great scape goat.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama is going to find a problem no matter what they wear say or do, hell he would have a problem if they wore a tux. It has nothing to do with the police other than they are a great scape goat.
Its not about uniforms or equipment--its about skin color. The blacks and obama are saying--no more being ruled over by whitey...
Its all about subduing whitey..
A return to the multiple tribes set up they lost when leaving Africa. They want savagery and tribal chiefs all of them black to rule...
Of course they'll not say that buts its how they do when civilization is removed from them--they go back native in a flip of the switch.--Tyr

[Jeff]

Its not about uniforms or equipment--its about skin color. The blacks and obama are saying--no more being ruled over by whitey...
Its all about subduing whitey..
A return to the multiple tribes set up they lost when leaving Africa. They want savagery and tribal chiefs all of them black to rule...
Of course they'll not say that buts its how they do when civilization is removed from them--they go back native in a flip of the switch.--Tyr

Ding Ding Ding, give that man a cigar, you are absolutely right.


And may I add you are one of the few with the Nads to admit it.

[Perianne]

Its not about uniforms or equipment--its about skin color. The blacks and obama are saying--no more being ruled over by whitey...
Its all about subduing whitey..
A return to the multiple tribes set up they lost when leaving Africa. They want savagery and tribal chiefs all of them black to rule...
Of course they'll not say that buts its how they do when civilization is removed from them--they go back native in a flip of the switch.--Tyr

You and I know that's true, but there are some who say there are no differences between them and regular people.

[LongTermGuy]

`Political correctness gave America the Black Caucus...as most Americans know they are not the brightest bunch and make very bad choices.....very much anti-white....*America doesn't need a black or white anything...Just an American thing...Many Black will never "get it"..
http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Black-Caucus-Racial-Divide.jpg

http://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/maxine-waters-congressional-black-caucus.jpg?w=1000&h=562&crop=1
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.fszYp6avg2kWXR7aZbuUzw&pid=15.1&P=0

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ding Ding Ding, give that man a cigar, you are absolutely right.


And may I add you are one of the few with the Nads to admit it.

Truth stands on its on(recent black riots prove it easily enough).
I'll be called racist for posting that but hey- I've been called far worse by far better people! :beer:
My motto is--"If the truth hurts, then change your damn ways or else shut the ffk up about it".
I tend to not care to appease sumbiatches that I have no damn respect for....
thats just how I roll, side benefit was-- it always got me into many fights--kept me in practice! ;)--Tyr

[aboutime]

I agree with the OBUMMER. In fact. I think his SECRET SERVICE protection gang would look SOFTER if they were instructed to wear Ladies Dresses, or Victoria Secret Underwear in the White House.

Would that be SOFT ENOUGH for him?

[Jeff]

I agree with the OBUMMER. In fact. I think his SECRET SERVICE protection gang would look SOFTER if they were instructed to wear Ladies Dresses, or Victoria Secret Underwear in the White House.

Would that be SOFT ENOUGH for him?

With all this talk and debates over same sex marriages I am thinking there are quite a few wearing that stuff at the WH. :laugh:

[Perianne]

I wear Victoria's Secret stuff. It doesn't make me soft.

[Max R.]

I agree with the OBUMMER. In fact. I think his SECRET SERVICE protection gang would look SOFTER if they were instructed to wear Ladies Dresses, or Victoria Secret Underwear in the White House.

Would that be SOFT ENOUGH for him?
J. Edgar Hoover reportedly enjoyed wearing ladies underwear. I'm sure he's not the only one in DC to ever do that. :nudie:

[Max R.]

I wear Victoria's Secret stuff. It doesn't make me soft.We need pictures for an independent assessment. :cool:

[Max R.]

As for the militarization of police, I find it a disturbing trend. People are finding it normal to see police in military garb looking like they are on a search and destroy mission in the village.

http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/12-2013/images/militarization.jpg

http://media.cagle.com/47/2014/08/15/152385_600.jpg

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/militarization-of-police.jpg-large.jpg

[LongTermGuy]

As for the militarization of police, I find it a disturbing trend. People are finding it normal to see police in military garb looking like they are on a search and destroy mission in the village.

http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/12-2013/images/militarization.jpg

http://media.cagle.com/47/2014/08/15/152385_600.jpg

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/militarization-of-police.jpg-large.jpg





*************************************


​When Criminals...Thugs and Terrorists evolved to more craziness and violence....The police evolved...

http://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/dellwood-5.jpg?w=640http://molempire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/burning_and_looting_london_2011-594x541.jpghttp://www.therazor.org/images/black_store_burning.jpghttp://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/thugs.jpghttp://intellectualconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/Crips-Bloods-306x300.jpghttp://americannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-08-at-6.28.03-PM.png




*It aint these days no more.....

http://www.arts-stew.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Andy-Griffith-Show.jpg

[Max R.]

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Benjamin-FranklinGiveUpEssentialLiberty.jpg

[Gunny]

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama banned the sale of certain military-style equipment to police departments.

`Brian Kilmeade reported on "The Kelly File" that Obama also thinks that police officers should have "softer looking" uniforms.

Kilmeade explained that Obama thinks that police officers are "making things worse" when they show up to inner city communities wearing military-style equipment and riot gear.

"They're concerned about the helmet. They're concerned about the shield. It's sending the wrong message," Kilmeade stated. "I used to think from the civilian point of view that that would be a reason not to riot, because the police were ready and ready to act."

Obama commissioned a review of the equipment programs last year after protests in Ferguson, Mo., over the shooting death of an 18-year-old black man by a police officer.

Kilmeade told Megyn Kelly that this is "unbelievable" and that if he were a police officer, he wouldn't show up to the next riot. `

*Watch the full video at the above link below...


Obama Wants Police Officers to Have 'Softer Looking' Uniforms (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/21/barack-obama-wants-police-officers-have-softer-looking-uniforms)

Since when was local law enforcement the business f the President of the US? Maybe he ought to concentrate more on the job he holds that he's screwed up than seeing how many times he can violate the 10th Amendment ....

[Gunny]

Obama is going to find a problem no matter what they wear say or do, hell he would have a problem if they wore a tux. It has nothing to do with the police other than they are a great scape goat.

I'm finding a problem with his constant meddling in state and local affairs when he ought to be concentrating on that disaster he's created in the Middle East.

[Max R.]

I'm finding a problem with his constant meddling in state and local affairs when he ought to be concentrating on that disaster he's created in the Middle East.
Agreed on state and local affairs.

However, all of that military equipment came from the Feds at pennies on the dollar. It'w within the purview of the CiC to stop supplying states with discounted Federal military surplus. If the states want to buy M-1 Abrams tanks and attack aircraft, they can go to the manufacturers and buy it.

[LongTermGuy]

I'm finding a problem with his constant meddling in state and local affairs when he ought to be concentrating on that disaster he's created in the Middle East.


He is to stupid and indoctrinated to try and fix things...even if he wanted to....we all now are witnessing the real `0`.....

[Gunny]

Its not about uniforms or equipment--its about skin color. The blacks and obama are saying--no more being ruled over by whitey...
Its all about subduing whitey..
A return to the multiple tribes set up they lost when leaving Africa. They want savagery and tribal chiefs all of them black to rule...
Of course they'll not say that buts its how they do when civilization is removed from them--they go back native in a flip of the switch.--Tyr


Ding Ding Ding, give that man a cigar, you are absolutely right.


And may I add you are one of the few with the Nads to admit it.


Agreed on state and local affairs.

However, all of that military equipment came from the Feds at pennies on the dollar. It'w within the purview of the CiC to stop supplying states with discounted Federal military surplus. If the states want to buy M-1 Abrams tanks and attack aircraft, they can go to the manufacturers and buy it.

And that's the rub. You do what the Federal Gov't tells you like a good boy, or we cut off your highway funding. Doesn't matter to THEM that THEY own those highways ....

Same bully, different toy ...

And I'll tell you right now, I don't like cops. I think they're heavy handed bullies just looking for excuses. All they do is collect revenue for the state and if you so much as look at them the wrong way they want to push. And you just KNOW I'm going to back down.:laugh:

Still, the President has interjected himself in Ferguson, Baltimore, and I'm sure Cleveland is coming. Note that the black guy that killed the white folk in DC is pretty much back burner already ....

[LongTermGuy]

Agreed on state and local affairs.

However, all of that military equipment came from the Feds at pennies on the dollar. It'w within the purview of the CiC to stop supplying states with discounted Federal military surplus. If the states want to buy M-1 Abrams tanks and attack aircraft, they can go to the manufacturers and buy it.

`.....Its there to help the Good working folks...I dont care how they get the equipment for now more the better....anything to stomp out the cacaroaches aided by a liberal driven agenda....Problem is they are not allowed to use it for now.....they say the soft look is in.....which only emboldens the cacaroaches....agenda driven political correctness is a crime to America...and only adds fuel to the fire which is almost out of control...some are pushing for a race war.....they might not like the end results if it happens

[Max R.]

And that's the rub. You do what the Federal Gov't tells you like a good boy, or we cut off your highway funding. Doesn't matter to THEM that THEY own those highways ....

Same bully, different toy ...

And I'll tell you right now, I don't like cops. I think they're heavy handed bullies just looking for excuses. All they do is collect revenue for the state and if you so much as look at them the wrong way they want to push. And you just KNOW I'm going to back down.:laugh:

Still, the President has interjected himself in Ferguson, Baltimore, and I'm sure Cleveland is coming. Note that the black guy that killed the white folk in DC is pretty much back burner already ....
That's always a conundrum; a fact of life that was the aftermath of the Civil War.

OTOH, we all know why the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights; due to a concern of government tyranny over the citizenry. Sorry guys, but I always get a little queasy when people advocate local government be more powerful than the citizenry. That's just one short step from martial law and a subsequent loss of all rights by force.

Despite the fear-mongering, no gang-bangers have tanks, heavy machine guns and helicopter gun ships. Even if they did, it wouldn't be for long due to a simple matter of attrition (i.e., we have more). Still I get a bad feeling when I see police dressed like an occupation army.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/2i0tboy.jpg

[Gunny]

That's always a conundrum; a fact of life that was the aftermath of the Civil War.

OTOH, we all know why the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights; due to a concern of government tyranny over the citizenry. Sorry guys, but I always get a little queasy when people advocate local government be more powerful than the citizenry. That's just one short step from martial law and a subsequent loss of all rights by force.

Despite the fear-mongering, no gang-bangers have tanks, heavy machine guns and helicopter gun ships. Even if they did, it wouldn't be for long due to a simple matter of attrition (i.e., we have more). Still I get a bad feeling when I see police dressed like an occupation army.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/2i0tboy.jpg

I don't advocate ANY government be more powerful than its citizens. Next conundrum: the way the law reads however is that the citizenry put them in office; therefore, they represent the will of the people. The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to riot. Nor protest by blocking people from getting to and from where they wish to go. It gives us the right to redress grievances.

Again, I don't like how cops act. But we pay for the actions of the few.

[Max R.]

`.....Its there to help the Good working folks...I dont care how they get the equipment for now more the better....anything to stomp out the cacaroaches aided by a liberal driven agenda....Problem is they are not allowed to use it for now.....they say the soft look is in.....which only emboldens the cacaroaches....agenda driven political correctness is a crime to America...and only adds fuel to the fire which is almost out of control...some are pushing for a race war.....they might not like the end results if it happens

Careful what path you choose. You may not like the results. Eventually, you and I could be the "cacaroaches" who are deemed be a danger to society by virtue of owning guns and not swearing fealty to the United Socialist States of America.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
-- President Gerald Ford (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4694)


The first step to tyranny is to have a force large and powerful enough to enact it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I also don't like the direction our nation is headed.

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA2LzI0LzI4L1BvbGljZV9Td2F0LmZlZTY1LmpwZw pwCXRodW1iCTk1MHg1MzQjCmUJanBn/53d39552/817/Police_Swat_Drill.jpg

[LongTermGuy]

Careful what path you choose. You may not like the results. Eventually, you and I could be the "cacaroaches" who are deemed be a danger to society by virtue of owning guns and not swearing fealty to the United Socialist States of America.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
-- President Gerald Ford (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4694)


The first step to tyranny is to have a force large and powerful enough to enact it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I also don't like the direction our nation is headed.

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE0LzA2LzI0LzI4L1BvbGljZV9Td2F0LmZlZTY1LmpwZw pwCXRodW1iCTk1MHg1MzQjCmUJanBn/53d39552/817/Police_Swat_Drill.jpg


*Get this straight...>I dont care for big gov period...not even talking about that....your going way off track...The states and small towns can use the extra discounted equipment...to fight the spreading cancer...The people elected their home town officials...and the people can /will / take / vote them out...Most police forces are from the same small town / state and tied in with the people...babies...wives...children...etc...

[Max R.]

I don't advocate ANY government be more powerful than its citizens. Next conundrum: the way the law reads however is that the citizenry put them in office; therefore, they represent the will of the people. The Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to riot. Nor protest by blocking people from getting to and from where they wish to go. It gives us the right to redress grievances.

Again, I don't like how cops act. But we pay for the actions of the few.
Agreed, but since it's virtually illegal for you and I to own machine guns, gunships, tanks and the like, we already have a Federal government more power than it's citizens. Now, with the increasingly militarized police, local police are more powerful too.

Now I know President Obama is, as usual, making this a racial issue. It was militarized police which dominated the Ferguson and Baltimore protesters into submission and he's responding to black voices on that issue. However, can't we all see there's something bigger here? Something more important than a President who often plays the race card? Can't we see the wisdom in President Ford's words?

[Max R.]

*Get this straight...>I dont care for big gov period...not even talking about that....your going way off track...The states and small towns can use the extra discounted equipment...to fight the spreading cancer...The people elected their home town officials...and the people can /will / take / vote them out...
Disagreed. I'm looking far down the road while you, sir, appear to be looking at the moment. Specifically, a racially-biased President.

On January 21st, 2017, President Obama will be history, but if Americans embrace increased militarizing their local police to become local armies controlled by the state, or the Feds (remember Gunny's words about threats to cut funding for highways and such?), then we're all screwed.

I have a lot of guns and a lot of ammo, but I don't have a fucking tank. A SWAT team can take me down in minutes regardless of my rights or any form of morality. All someone has to do is give the order and I'm either dead or off to a re-education camp.

[LongTermGuy]

Disagreed. I'm looking far down the road while you, sir, appear to be looking at the moment. Specifically, a racially-biased President.

On January 21st, 2017, President Obama will be history, but if Americans embrace increased militarizing their local police to become local armies controlled by the state, or the Feds (remember Gunny's words about threats to cut funding for highways and such?), then we're all screwed.

I have a lot of guns and a lot of ammo, but I don't have a fucking tank. A SWAT team can take me down in minutes regardless of my rights or any form of morality. All someone has to do is give the order and I'm either dead or off to a re-education camp.


`Relax ...I am thinking realistically...and no conspiracy theory s.... *And I disagree with you sir completely...."armies controlled by the state" who will be driving these tanks?....*Most likely the same people from the same state and towns who love their families....and love America......*.which we are all part of...and I am sure most of us are loaded up with all "necessities"....ourselves

[aboutime]

That's always a conundrum; a fact of life that was the aftermath of the Civil War.

OTOH, we all know why the Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights; due to a concern of government tyranny over the citizenry. Sorry guys, but I always get a little queasy when people advocate local government be more powerful than the citizenry. That's just one short step from martial law and a subsequent loss of all rights by force.

Despite the fear-mongering, no gang-bangers have tanks, heavy machine guns and helicopter gun ships. Even if they did, it wouldn't be for long due to a simple matter of attrition (i.e., we have more). Still I get a bad feeling when I see police dressed like an occupation army.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/2i0tboy.jpg

Wrong! The GANG BANGERS are those who take to the streets with the blessings of the OBAMA LOVING IDIOTS...generally, the terribly uneducated who call themselves members of the DEMOCRAT Party. As well as the Congressional Black Caucus members who fully support Obama's direction at LAWLESSNESS.
In other words. No matter how anyone TRIES to describe it. WE ARE UNDER MOB/GANG RULE today.
It began with the disintegration of our Military. YOU should know that as a Veteran. Yes, you were in the Gulf War, as was I. But this Democrat Mob Rule began during the Vietnam war...when I had to call LBJ my C-I-C.

[Max R.]

`Relax ...I am thinking realistically...and no conspiracy theory s.... *And I disagree with you sir completely...."armies controlled by the state" who will be driving these tanks?....*Most likely the same people from the same state and towns who love their families....and love America......*.which we are all part of...and I am sure most of us are loaded up with all "necessities"....ourselves
At least we're agreed Jade Helm is bullshit as well as the conspiracy theory about DHS buying up all the ammo and all the other Obama-is-coming-for-us nutjob theories.

That said, I still have a problem with police being armed better than the armies of small countries. While I don't like our police being cut down by gang-bangers, biker gangs or other assholes with automatic weapons while our police are forced to only wear a t-shirt and carry a wheel gun, I would much rather lose a few police officers than see our nation move closer to tyranny and a society dominated by force.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- John Dalberg-Acton

By giving government more power, even local or state government, we risk being dominated by that power. I can see an armored vehicle needed for taking down a drug lab, but tanks? Military garb? Enough firepower to knock over a Third World Nation? (Dogs of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dogs_of_War_%28novel%29))

It makes me as queasy as I'm sure our Founders were when they saw Red Coats marching down the street.

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/Boston-Massacre-Hero-1-H.jpeg

There's a saying that a broken clock is right twice a day. IMO, many here are bucking because President Obama favors this idea. What I see is those people screaming that the clock is wrong all day simply because it's name is Obama.

Careful what we advocate here, gentlemen. Empowering our government, even local government, to have the firepower and equipment of an army is a step in a direction I really don't want to see our nation head.

[LongTermGuy]

At least we're agreed Jade Helm is bullshit as well as the conspiracy theory about DHS buying up all the ammo and all the other Obama-is-coming-for-us nutjob theories.

That said, I still have a problem with police being armed better than the armies of small countries. While I don't like our police being cut down by gang-bangers, biker gangs or other assholes with automatic weapons while our police are forced to only wear a t-shirt and carry a wheel gun, I would much rather lose a few police officers than see our nation move closer to tyranny and a society dominated by force.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- John Dalberg-Acton

By giving government more power, even local or state government, we risk being dominated by that power. I can see an armored vehicle needed for taking down a drug lab, but tanks? Military garb? Enough firepower to knock over a Third World Nation? (Dogs of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dogs_of_War_%28novel%29))

It makes me as queasy as I'm sure our Founders were when they saw Red Coats marching down the street.

http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/11/Boston-Massacre-Hero-1-H.jpeg

There's a saying that a broken clock is right twice a day. IMO, many here are bucking because President Obama favors this idea. What I see is those people screaming that the clock is wrong all day simply because it's name is Obama.

Careful what we advocate here, gentlemen. Empowering our government, even local government, to have the firepower and equipment of an army is a step in a direction I really don't want to see our nation head.



* Ya...`lets agree to disagree` .....Let the red coats or anyone come to our shores try that NOW and see what happens....*Back to the present... `o`would have to try to import some cacaroaches to drive those tanks and start shooting Americans in the streets.....American military and LEO`s are "comprised" of Americans with ties and roots...If by chance a small group of `rabid anti-American` souls did try they will be overwhelmed and stopped....*Folks...there are alot of conspiracy theories out there...it is what it is...Live every day to its fullest....enjoy being an American...handle all threats vigilantly...prosper and grow....This is your time.

[Max R.]

* Ya...`lets agree to disagree` .....Let the red coats or anyone come to our shores try that NOW and see what happens....*Back to the present... `o`would have to try to import some cacaroaches to drive those tanks and start shooting Americans in the streets.....American military and LEO`s are "comprised" of Americans with ties and roots...If by chance a small group of `rabid anti-American` souls did try they will be overwhelmed and stopped....*Folks...there are alot of conspiracy theories out there...it is what it is...Live every day to its fullest....enjoy being an American...handle all threats vigilantly...prosper and grow....This is your time.

No need to import "Tories" or Red Coats since we have far too many with exactly the same mindset on our own shores.

I'm against all those who seek to undermine our Constitution and who seek to deprive Americans of their rights. No matter who they are.

[LongTermGuy]

No need to import "Tories" or Red Coats since we have far too many with exactly the same mindset on our own shores.

I'm against all those who seek to undermine our Constitution and who seek to deprive Americans of their rights. No matter who they are.

**************************************

*Only problem we have on our shores now is open borders....naive islamic tolerance .....and ignorant racists black Theology.... which is fueled by the `far` left.....


~ "I'm against all those who seek to undermine our Constitution and who seek to deprive Americans of their rights. No matter who they are." ~

:cool:
:salute:...how about a beer brother?:beer:

[Max R.]

**************************************

*Only problem we have on our shores now is open borders....naive islamic tolerance .....and ignorant racists black Theology.... which is fueled by the `far` left.....


~ "I'm against all those who seek to undermine our Constitution and who seek to deprive Americans of their rights. No matter who they are." ~

:cool:
:salute:...how about a beer brother?:beer:If we have freedom and protect the rights of all American citizens, then why fear monger about Mexicans, Muslims and Blacks. Don't you think American citizens who happen to be Hispanic, Muslim or black deserve the same rights as white, male Christian Americans?

How do you seek to divide our citizenry? Which Americans should have full rights, which should have partial rights and which, in your opinion, should have no rights?
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2cqh994.jpg

[aboutime]

If we have freedom and protect the rights of all American citizens, then why fear monger about Mexicans, Muslims and Blacks. Don't you think American citizens who happen to be Hispanic, Muslim or black deserve the same rights as white, male Christian Americans?

How do you seek to divide our citizenry? Which Americans should have full rights, which should have partial rights and which, in your opinion, should have no rights?
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2cqh994.jpg


Max R. Seems you aren't really aware of the actual reasons you insist we are discriminating, or preventing Any American from their rights. Our emphasis is on LEGAL citizens. Those who have LEGALLY gained their citizenship. They have FULL RIGHTS and you should know it. WE aren't dividing anything. Obama is intentionally DIVIDING us with RACE BAITING, and IGNORANCE.
AMERICANS...legal AMERICANS should, and do have FULL RIGHTS.
Anyone who is here ILLEGALLY....does not earn, nor should they be granted FULL RIGHTS. Period.

[LongTermGuy]

If we have freedom and protect the rights of all American citizens, then why fear monger about Mexicans, Muslims and Blacks. Don't you think American citizens who happen to be Hispanic, Muslim or black deserve the same rights as white, male Christian Americans?

How do you seek to divide our citizenry? Which Americans should have full rights, which should have partial rights and which, in your opinion, should have no rights?
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2cqh994.jpg

Were straying from our original topic...but ok...Lets decide what is a real Legal "American" wanna-be first...not someone who wants to come here for benefits or has an "agenda" for coming here and feels citizenship is a joke....or let into the country by a very dangerous Liberal mind-set...There is no Fear mongering here Amigo...either you been asleep or have not been following the news lately...no matter the color or where people are from...their actions speak louder than words...our borders are wide open now....and we live in dangerous times....but I feel you know that already...interesting.....the borders should be controlled much better...and folks coming here should be looked at a little closer...for the sake of "Americans" here...

[Gunny]

Agreed, but since it's virtually illegal for you and I to own machine guns, gunships, tanks and the like, we already have a Federal government more power than it's citizens. Now, with the increasingly militarized police, local police are more powerful too.

Now I know President Obama is, as usual, making this a racial issue. It was militarized police which dominated the Ferguson and Baltimore protesters into submission and he's responding to black voices on that issue. However, can't we all see there's something bigger here? Something more important than a President who often plays the race card? Can't we see the wisdom in President Ford's words?

If push comes to shove, I possess the skill set to get one of THEIRS. Possessing the wisdom to see, and dealing with the reality are NOT the same things.

[Gunny]

No need to import "Tories" or Red Coats since we have far too many with exactly the same mindset on our own shores.

I'm against all those who seek to undermine our Constitution and who seek to deprive Americans of their rights. No matter who they are.

There's a theme here. I understand it well. ;)

[Gunny]

No need to import "Tories" or Red Coats since we have far too many with exactly the same mindset on our own shores.

I'm against all those who seek to undermine our Constitution and who seek to deprive Americans of their rights. No matter who they are.


I agree. I think the divide here is the difference between legal citizens and illegals, who are by law, nothing more than criminals. Remember the idiots that would take "cuts" in line in school? Or the ones that do it now at WalMart? Illegals are just saying screw the legal process and swimming the river.

I'm more than willing to deprive them of rights they don't have.

[Gunny]

I'll say this: Max is absolutely right about people focusing on symptoms and not the disease. The entitlement folk in this country were made that way. Illegals being given a pass were made that way. Blacks rioting? Why not? They've been trained to know they can riot, and nothing will be done to them and they can get away with it.

I don't agree with militarizing our police. I wish they'd go solve some REAL crimes instead of mugging on the camera on COPS over busting some kid with a small matchbox with less than half a joint of weed in it.

BUT, what created the need? Gangbangers with more firepower than the police. It originally wasn't about being used on day to day citizens. It was about what SWAT says: Special Weapons and Tactics. Special. Kind of like they need an entire SWAT team with smoke to bust in and get a 5 years old Elian Gonzales in the 90's. The overkill is ridiculous. And it's getting worse.

Cops already use LAVs. At what point is too much? And trying to stop "too much" is usually "too late".

[Max R.]

Were straying from our original topic...but ok...Lets decide what is a real Legal "American" wanna-be first...not someone who wants to come here for benefits or has an "agenda" for coming here and feels citizenship is a joke....or let into the country by a very dangerous Liberal mind-set...There is no Fear mongering here Amigo...either you been asleep or have not been following the news lately...no matter the color or where people are from...their actions speak louder than words...our borders are wide open now....and we live in dangerous times....but I feel you know that already...interesting.....the borders should be controlled much better...and folks coming here should be looked at a little closer...for the sake of "Americans" here...
Our borders aren't "wide open". What we have is a flawed immigration system. Why aren't we arresting an imprisoning any person who hires, rents to or otherwise supports illegal immigrants? It's far easier to imprison a few dozen construction and hotel owners than it is to round up 11 million illegal aliens.

What was the greatest hindrance to illegal immigration in the past 30 years? Congress? Hell no. The Great Recession. No jobs and there's no incentive for illegals to come here.

[aboutime]

Our borders aren't "wide open". What we have is a flawed immigration system. Why aren't we arresting an imprisoning any person who hires, rents to or otherwise supports illegal immigrants? It's far easier to imprison a few dozen construction and hotel owners than it is to round up 11 million illegal aliens.

What was the greatest hindrance to illegal immigration in the past 30 years? Congress? Hell no. The Great Recession. No jobs and there's no incentive for illegals to come here.


Max R. How long have you been defending Obama, and his admin. who took away the POWERS of ICE, and have opened those WIDE OPEN borders you deny exist?

What planet are you on? Are you really so blind, and loving of Obama. Nothing you see, read, hear that discloses how our nation is being destroyed....means anything to you because you LOVE Obama more?

[Max R.]

Max R. How long have you been defending Obama, and his admin. who took away the POWERS of ICE, and have opened those WIDE OPEN borders you deny exist?

What planet are you on? Are you really so blind, and loving of Obama. Nothing you see, read, hear that discloses how our nation is being destroyed....means anything to you because you LOVE Obama more?
The same amount of time you've been abusing your wife.

Obama was an unknown pot-smoking college student when I was in the Marine Corps and President Reagan made this speech. Where were you?:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128

<tbody>

<tbody>
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
July 30, 1981

</tbody>


</tbody>

<tbody>



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/spacer.gif




Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.
The bipartisan select commission which reported this spring concluded that the Cuban influx to Florida made the United States sharply aware of the need for more effective immigration policies and the need for legislation to support those policies.
For these reasons, I asked the Attorney General last March to chair a Task Force on Immigration and Refugee Policy. We discussed the matter when President Lopez Portillo visited me last month, and we have carefully considered the views of our Mexican friends. In addition, the Attorney General has consulted with those concerned in Congress and in affected States and localities and with interested members of the public.
The Attorney General is undertaking administrative actions and submitting to Congress, on behalf of the administration, a legislative package, based on eight principles. These principles are designed to preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion:
• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
• At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.
• We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.
• We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.
• Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
• We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy, and we shall improve the capability of those agencies of the Federal Government which deal with these matters.
• We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
• Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.
Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.


</tbody>

[aboutime]

The same amount of time you've been abusing your wife.

Obama was an unknown pot-smoking college student when I was in the Marine Corps and President Reagan made this speech. Where were you?:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128

<tbody>

<tbody>
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
July 30, 1981

</tbody>


</tbody>

<tbody>



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/spacer.gif




Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.
The bipartisan select commission which reported this spring concluded that the Cuban influx to Florida made the United States sharply aware of the need for more effective immigration policies and the need for legislation to support those policies.
For these reasons, I asked the Attorney General last March to chair a Task Force on Immigration and Refugee Policy. We discussed the matter when President Lopez Portillo visited me last month, and we have carefully considered the views of our Mexican friends. In addition, the Attorney General has consulted with those concerned in Congress and in affected States and localities and with interested members of the public.
The Attorney General is undertaking administrative actions and submitting to Congress, on behalf of the administration, a legislative package, based on eight principles. These principles are designed to preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion:
• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
• At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.
• We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.
• We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.
• Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
• We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy, and we shall improve the capability of those agencies of the Federal Government which deal with these matters.
• We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
• Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.
Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.


</tbody>


Just so happens, I was aboard a U.S. Navy Guided Missile Destroyer, sailing around South America, before we were sent to the Med, and spent a few days in 1983, sitting off the coast of Beirut after more than 200 U.S. Marines died. You wanna brag about being a Marine. Tell those Men, and see if they are impressed with how you cut, and paste a speech from Reagan.

[Gunny]

Our borders aren't "wide open". What we have is a flawed immigration system. Why aren't we arresting an imprisoning any person who hires, rents to or otherwise supports illegal immigrants? It's far easier to imprison a few dozen construction and hotel owners than it is to round up 11 million illegal aliens.

What was the greatest hindrance to illegal immigration in the past 30 years? Congress? Hell no. The Great Recession. No jobs and there's no incentive for illegals to come here.

Good question. You're a bit late on that one though. I'm all for punishing the profiteers.

But, our borders ARE wide open.

[Gunny]

The same amount of time you've been abusing your wife.

Obama was an unknown pot-smoking college student when I was in the Marine Corps and President Reagan made this speech. Where were you?:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=44128

<tbody>

<tbody>
Statement on United States Immigration and Refugee Policy
July 30, 1981

</tbody>


</tbody>

<tbody>



http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/spacer.gif




Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries.
The bipartisan select commission which reported this spring concluded that the Cuban influx to Florida made the United States sharply aware of the need for more effective immigration policies and the need for legislation to support those policies.
For these reasons, I asked the Attorney General last March to chair a Task Force on Immigration and Refugee Policy. We discussed the matter when President Lopez Portillo visited me last month, and we have carefully considered the views of our Mexican friends. In addition, the Attorney General has consulted with those concerned in Congress and in affected States and localities and with interested members of the public.
The Attorney General is undertaking administrative actions and submitting to Congress, on behalf of the administration, a legislative package, based on eight principles. These principles are designed to preserve our tradition of accepting foreigners to our shores, but to accept them in a controlled and orderly fashion:
• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
• At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom.
• We have a special relationship with our closest neighbors, Canada and Mexico. Our immigration policy should reflect this relationship.
• We must also recognize that both the United States and Mexico have historically benefited from Mexicans obtaining employment in the United States. A number of our States have special labor needs, and we should take these into account.
• Illegal immigrants in considerable numbers have become productive members of our society and are a basic part of our work force. Those who have established equities in the United States should be recognized and accorded legal status. At the same time, in so doing, we must not encourage illegal immigration.
• We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy, and we shall improve the capability of those agencies of the Federal Government which deal with these matters.
• We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
• Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.
Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.


</tbody>


I think immigration should be put on hold. We WERE a nation of immigrants. Now we're just a nation of lazy people that don't want to work for a living. There wouldn't be any jobs if pampered US citizens would work instead of sitting around on welfare. IMO, if you're collecting a welfare check, you're picking tomatoes and cantaloupes.

We had this thing when I was a kid called the base nursery. It's where you went if you weren't old enough (10) to go into the commissary or the exchange. Paying for that is cheaper than giving these people a free ride. And maybe, after busting butt out in the fields for a couple of days, the idea of getting a job might not look so bad.

Point is, if we can't employ our own people, we shouldn't be employing someone else's. And I'm in TOTAL agreement with you on punishing the employers of illegals, but the fact is, little is done to them.

[Max R.]

Just so happens, I was aboard a U.S. Navy Guided Missile Destroyer, sailing around South America, before we were sent to the Med, and spent a few days in 1983, sitting off the coast of Beirut after more than 200 U.S. Marines died. You wanna brag about being a Marine. Tell those Men, and see if they are impressed with how you cut, and paste a speech from Reagan.
I'm well aware of what happened in Lebanon. What does this have to do with your "open borders" claim? Or do you want to spend more time being a Keyboard Kommando and lobbing insults?

[Max R.]

Good question. You're a bit late on that one though. I'm all for punishing the profiteers.

But, our borders ARE wide open.

Agreed about punishing the profiteers, disagreed on wide open. I'm a frequent traveler to both Mexico and Canada. If we have an "open border", it's the world's longest undefended border in the world at the 48th Parallel. Crossing back and fourth to Mexico is a royal pain in the ass.

I live in Texas where we have a huge illegal immigration problem, as do the other Mexican border states. Amnesty isn't the answer, but neither is a wall, mine fields or banning all immigrants of Mexican descent.

The incentive for illegal immigration is financial. A huge chunk of cash made by illegals is sent "home" to Mexico. Reduce or restrict the incentive and much of the problem will fix itself. We'd still have problems, but it's easier when illegals self-deport rather than having to hunt them down, deport them and rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271455/Revealed-How-immigrants-America-sending-120-BILLION-struggling-families-home.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/31/article-2271455-174691D9000005DC-842_964x579.jpg

[aboutime]

I'm well aware of what happened in Lebanon. What does this have to do with your "open borders" claim? Or do you want to spend more time being a Keyboard Kommando and lobbing insults?


Better yet. How bout you answer your own question? YOU posted Reagan's speech, not I.

[aboutime]

I'm well aware of what happened in Lebanon. What does this have to do with your "open borders" claim? Or do you want to spend more time being a Keyboard Kommando and lobbing insults?


Better yet. How bout you answer your own question? YOU posted Reagan's speech, not I.

AND....you asked "Where were you?" If not. Who does your typing?

[Max R.]

Better yet. How bout you answer your own question? YOU posted Reagan's speech, not I.I posted President Reagan's speech as proof this problem has been in need of a workable solution since at least the 1980s. Only an idiot thinks it's only existed since 2008.