Due to time constraints in running and maintaining it, Plime is for sale.
Please contact avi[a]worth1000.com if you are seriously interested in buying it.
 Police State 2009: Pentagon to Militarize USA with 20,000 Armed Troops
Police State 2009: Pentagon to Militarize USA with 20,000 Armed Troops
In direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military troops from playing a role in domestic law enforcement, the Pentagon has announced plans to station 20,000 armed, uniformed troops inside the United States where they will walk the streets, ready to "respond to terrorism events," picked by Bornbad 12 months ago
tags Police State 2009 Pentagon Militarize Armed Troops
 quote edit #1 

  comments (22)  share edit history (0)
< 1 2 >
18
 JoshSF49
12 months ago
like unruly americans who disagree with their government.

yay!
quote #2
37
 dollylla...
12 months ago
The MSNBC article linked is slightly less hysterical, still, is it ever a good idea to put shell-shocked troops on a street with guns?
quote #3
28
 gammerus
12 months ago
Are you s**tting me?
quote #4
17
 fentwin
12 months ago
I wonder what color their shirts will be....brown perhaps?
quote #5
About Plime
Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

16
 fizz71
12 months ago
I love conspiracy theorist--they always make for a hilarious read.
quote #6
19
 jhordie
12 months ago
« fizz71 : I love conspiracy theorist--they always make for a hilarious read.
Don't laugh too quickly.
quote #7
17
 tragluk
12 months ago
Ever hear the story of the $2 bill and the Coast Guard base?

It goes something like this...

When a Coast Guard base commander was approached by the mayor of the town that the base was next to the conversation turned to how the Coast Guardsmen were ruining the town. They drink, they are rude, they are a drain on resources. The mayor contended that the base needed to relocate someplace else.

The commander of the base thought for a moment, and promptly ordered that the next 'payday' for all base personnel would be done in CASH, not check or elecronic deposit. Each man would have to sign for his pay, and the pay would be ENTIRELY in $2 bills.

As you can imagine, the town found itself flooded with $2 bills. The banks, the grocery stores, the antique shops, everywhere you saw $2 bills.


...

The point of the story is to provide an alternate theory to the reason why you would station troops IN the U.S. Because, instead of spending their monies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somolia, etc. etc. etc. All those troops will be forced to spend it.. well.. HERE.

It's a New 'New Deal' where instead of employing people to build dams and bridges, you're employing people to 'defend the country' and those people will spend their money in towns and cities across the U.S. That money will allow businesses to hire more people. Those people will be able to afford to spend THEIR money elsewhere as well.

...

But heaven forbid we credit the government with an intelligent idea. I'm probably part of the new facist government which is trying to keep Alaska from becoming it's own country (Something I've said they should do for years, oil reserves anyone?) under the direction of President Palin.

Crazy, I know.
quote #8
13
 juaner89...
12 months ago
This is kind of scary. Maybe its just me making a big deal of nothing.

But how much freedom are we willing to lose in order for us to feel safe? When you add up all the freedoms we've already given up. I fear that by the time people say "enough" it will be to late. Lets hope I'm wrong.
quote #9
19
 jhordie
12 months ago
« tragluk : Ever hear the story of the $2 bill and the Coast Guard base?
That's a nice story. And for the sake of the U.S., I hope it's true.

Here's another story though.

My dad showed this to me a long time ago. For him it was a slam against the Democrats and those wanting government handouts. Which is a valid point. However, there's more than just food that we can be fed. We can also be fed fear, and be oblivious to the fence being built.

I haven't discussed the irony with him about this. He probably wouldn't be able to see it or admit it until it was too late.

And yes, I hope I'm wrong about this. But a politician is a politician. None should be bowed to and trusted absolutely. They should always be questioned and analyzed. Always.
quote #10
16
 ImNotBlu...
12 months ago
Perhaps this is just part of the Bush Admin helping make a "smooth transition" for the Obama Admin.

Afterall, it was Obama who said:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

<a href='http://www.plime.com/redir.p?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&amp;eurl=http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/11/is_obamas_civil.php&amp;feature=player_embedded' class='plime' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'><b>flash video</b></a>




Maybe they're just starting early...
quote #11
19
 jhordie
12 months ago
« ImNotBlue:Perhaps this is just part of the Bush Admin helping make a "smooth transition" for the Obama Admin.

Afterall, it was Obama who said:




Maybe they're just starting early...
Like I said. No politican should be trusted absolutely. It started with the Bush administration before 9/11.

Here's another interesting read about what went on at the National Republican Convention.

We put too much faith and trust in politicians. Especially if they're from the party one normally votes for. What I like to do is ask myself, Would I be okay with this if it was the other party doing this? It's my own method of checks and balances. Helps me not be blinded and gullible.

A politician is a politician is a politician. They play political games and are usually ruled by ego. They do not put us on the same pedestal we often put them on. Unless of course we are willing to hand them absolute power. Than watch the ass kissing begin. But then that goes back to my previous point... it's all about the game of politics. And winning.
quote #12
16
 fizz71
12 months ago
« jhordie : Don't laugh too quickly.
What's laughable is that it takes one news article and then exagerates it so far to left that it becomes comical. Take the VERY TITLE!!!..."Police State 2009: Pentagon to Militarize USA with 20,000 Armed Troops"

Funny...the MSNBC article says 2011.

The article makes it sound like 20,000 troops are on there way to populate our cities like they'll be arriving next month. The real deal is about 20,000 troops are going to be trained over the course of the next 3 years.

And that's just one of the "streches" the article throws out there....THAT'S why it's laughable.
quote #13
17
 fentwin
12 months ago
« ImNotBlue : Perhaps this is just part of the Bush Admin helping make a "smooth transition" for the Obama Admin.

Afterall, it was Obama who said:



Maybe they're just starting early...


I'm probably wrong, but isn't the National Guard used in a similar manner (i.e. times of natural and man made disasters?)
quote #14
38
 Moe
12 months ago
« fizz71 : What's laughable is that it takes one news article and then exagerates it so far to left that it becomes comical. Take the VERY TITLE!!!..."Police State 2009: Pentagon to Militarize USA with 20,000 Armed Troops"

Funny...the MSNBC article says 2011.

The article makes it sound like 20,000 troops are on there way to populate our cities like they'll be arriving next month. The real deal is about 20,000 troops are going to be trained over the course of the next 3 years.

And that's just one of the "streches" the article throws out there....THAT'S why it's laughable.
Laughable until they are pointing assault rifles in your face telling you to get your ass back into the "Protected Freedom Zone". So what if the dates are wrong by 24 months? I don't want to see 20,000 troops on our streets in 3 years or in 30 years.
quote #15
16
 ImNotBlu...
12 months ago
« fentwin : I'm probably wrong, but isn't the National Guard used in a similar manner (i.e. times of natural and man made disasters?)
The real objection was the idea of it being "as well funded" as the military. That's a lot of money for this group... why do they need all that money? What are they going to be doing?
quote #16
17
 fentwin
12 months ago
« ImNotBlue : The real objection was the idea of it being "as well funded" as the military. That's a lot of money for this group... why do they need all that money? What are they going to be doing?

Excellent point. You know, hammers and toilet seats aren't cheap.
quote #17
14
 killerbe...
12 months ago
I like being defended from ... ... .. nothing. nothing at all. awesome.
quote #18
16
 ImNotBlu...
12 months ago
« fentwin : Excellent point. You know, hammers and toilet seats aren't cheap.
Very true. That's why I have one that does both.

Although, I must admit... it's a better hammer than toilet seat. The claw part keeps getting stuck in my rectum.
quote #19
37
 dollylla...
12 months ago
« tragluk : Ever hear the story of the $2 bill and the Coast Guard base?

It goes something like this...

When a Coast Guard base commander was approached by the mayor of the town that the base was next to the conversation turned to how the Coast Guardsmen were ruining the town. They drink, they are rude, they are a drain on resources. The mayor contended that the base needed to relocate someplace else.

The commander of the base thought for a moment, and promptly ordered that the next 'payday' for all base personnel would be done in CASH, not check or elecronic deposit. Each man would have to sign for his pay, and the pay would be ENTIRELY in $2 bills.

As you can imagine, the town found itself flooded with $2 bills. The banks, the grocery stores, the antique shops, everywhere you saw $2 bills.


...

The point of the story is to provide an alternate theory to the reason why you would station troops IN the U.S. Because, instead of spending their monies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somolia, etc. etc. etc. All those troops will be forced to spend it.. well.. HERE.

It's a New 'New Deal' where instead of employing people to build dams and bridges, you're employing people to 'defend the country' and those people will spend their money in towns and cities across the U.S. That money will allow businesses to hire more people. Those people will be able to afford to spend THEIR money elsewhere as well.

...

But heaven forbid we credit the government with an intelligent idea. I'm probably part of the new facist government which is trying to keep Alaska from becoming it's own country (Something I've said they should do for years, oil reserves anyone?) under the direction of President Palin.

Crazy, I know.
Please tell me that's sarcasm. You think the shopping in Afghanistan is good or Somalia? If the salary of the troops (even with combat/hazard pay) is anything like what I was earning they aren't shopping off-base anyway. The BX is discounted and there are BX's all over the US, where the goods will be far cheaper than you or I could buy it for but probably close to the same price they are paying in Iraq for the same thing at the BX. I doubt the plan is to boost our economy through troop implantations.
quote #20
11
 Jetka
12 months ago
Obama is surely the Antichrist.
quote #21
+ add a comment
< 1 2 >

copyright Worth1000, LLC