NationStates Jolt Archive

I am surprised I didn't see a thread on this around here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/02/mccain-suggests-iraqi-war-like-clampdown-to-deal-with-inner-city-crime/#comments

Audio is on the page. He said this:


MCCAIN: And some of those tactics - you mention the war in Iraq - are like that we use in the military. You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control. And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement, etc, etc.

and a trusted source(one not so biased, at least)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/a-surge-on-the.html

Mmm, I love the smell of a police state in the morning. Seriously Mr. McCain, you think this will solve anything? You fascist pig. And guess what? People are still willing to vote for him...And here is worse news, its not just McCain that supports this type of "crime deterrence". Chicago democrat, and current governor Rod "I'm a tool" Blagoveich, does as well (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5392684) So, I suppose we aren't really safe with either party in office. -sigh- This type of news always depresses me. Oh well, back to making petrol bombs. :)

Fuck me, Alex Jones was right after all.

Eh...I think he's talking about law enforcement, not soldiers. You're drawing your own conclusions here.

The revolution is coming, if these thugs get in. They want a society where they can wage war with anyone, arrest any opponent, and turn Blackwater mercenaries on their own people. They have legalized torture, and systematically eroded the checks and balances in the US Constitution to create an overbearing executive branch.

Don't blame me.... I voted for Ron Paul.

If McCain wins the election, don't blame me... I'm not voting... The same goes for Obama.

If McCain gets elected, it'll be four more years with "Bush the third".

*flees* :)

Eh...I think he's talking about law enforcement, not soldiers. You're drawing your own conclusions here.

He said he wanted to do it like they do in Iraq. I don't care if its military or police. I don't want road blocks, check points, random searches, racial profiling, so on and so forth, going on in my streets. If they want to stop crime they can go after the root of the problem: poor education and poverty.

Considering how large both parties are, it's not surprising that many Democrats will overlap with many Republicans on issues such as this.

I keep thinking about this strategy and while I can come up with a couple ways it could potentially help, I keep realizing that it's basically intended for full out violent riot situations, such as those that exist in Iraq. Not even the worst crime-ridden districts of our cities are anywhere near as bad. Certainly we don't need what amounts to martial law.

If McCain gets elected, it'll be four more years with "Bush the third".

*flees* :)

No, it'll be the beginning of America as a one-party state, with a Supreme Court stacked with Neo-con or Religious Right Justices and a probable war with Iran. In short:utter disaster.

If McCain gets elected, it'll be four more years with "Bush the third".

*flees* :)

Your retardo smiley avatar is win.

Considering how large both parties are, it's not surprising that many Democrats will overlap with many Republicans on issues such as this.

I keep thinking about this strategy and while I can come up with a couple ways it could potentially help, I keep realizing that it's basically intended for full out violent riot situations, such as those that exist in Iraq. Not even the worst crime-ridden districts of our cities are anywhere near as bad. Certainly we don't need what amounts to martial law.

Martial law, no. But Martian law? Well...

*gets baseball bat*

I'm actually a little confused--McCain has been known to break party lines in the past, and be a quite moderate conservative, so why assume he'll be Bush III? Is Iraq the only reason? Hell, McCain isn't some psychopath bent on world domination, or destroying America as we know it!

Yep, that'll work. You know, except that criminal elements can pack up en masse and move to more fertile grounds. ANd except that soldiers act as targets that criminals have no interest in attacking and are only interested in avoiding. Oh, and except that American cities and the surrounding suburbs each contain millions of people and would require more soldiers than we have by an order of magnitude to control...assuming criminals wouldn't just pack up and move.

So other than those teensy little holes, sounds like a good plan. Oh, and there's that whole Constitution thingy. :p

Martial law, no. But Martian law? Well...

*gets baseball bat*

I would welcome martian law, to be honest. They'd have to be more intelligent than that baboons we have in office now.

If McCain gets elected, it'll be four more years with "Bush the third".

*flees* :)

It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss either way you look at it. Obama, for all his talk, voted for the patriot act renewal among other things.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm (Homeland Security, Voting Record)

Oh, and there's that whole Constitution thingy. :p


What's that? I think I remember hearing about that in history books. Can't remember such a document existing in this day and age.

Shoot, if military tactics work better it probably makes sense to use them. Now, putting the national guard on the streets would be an entirely different matter, but the police could definitely use any kind of additional advice they could get when it comes to dealing with problem areas.

Chicago democrat, and current governor Rod "I'm a tool" Blagoveich, does as well (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5392684)

Blagoveich (who is a tool, I'll agree, as is Dickey Daley) only suggested using ILARNG helicopters in Chicago. Also note that Governors, state law permitting, are allowed to use their state militaries to perform law enforcement functions. In the 60s my grandfather was in the Michigan Guard and was part of a program where one Guardsman would ride around with a state trooper, freeing up manpower for the state police (who normally rode 2 in a car at that point).

Of course, McCain grabbed that idea and went from "asshole" straight into "crazy".

Martial law, no. But Martian law? Well...

*gets baseball bat*

I dub thee Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.

It's meet the new boss, same as the old boss either way you look at it. Obama, for all his talk, voted for the patriot act renewal among other things.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm (Homeland Security, Voting Record)

People who think there are no significant differences between Obama and McCain are probably either very ill-informed, or bitter Clinton supporters.

I dub thee sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.

You're the first person in over three fucking years to get that. The first.

People who think there are no significant differences between Obama and McCain are probably either very ill-informed, or bitter Clinton supporters.

Or completely cynical and disollusioned with the two party system.

Edit: And/or finding the comparision between Bush and McCain to be just as retarded.

What's that? I think I remember hearing about that in history books. Can't remember such a document existing in this day and age.

It's a classic. You should read it before all the copies get burned. *nod*

You're the first person in over three fucking years to get that. The first.

That makes me very sad.

That makes me very sad.

How do you think I feel?

Martial law, no. But Martian law? Well...

*gets baseball bat*

Damn it. That song's going to be stuck in my head until next week now.

If you're lookin' for me...you'd better check under the sea... :D

Damn it. That song's going to be stuck in my head until next week now.

If you're lookin' for me...you'd better check under the sea... :D

Seeeeeealaaaab, underneath the water... Seeeeeealaaaab, at the bottom of the sea...

I'm actually a little confused--McCain has been known to break party lines in the past, and be a quite moderate conservative, so why assume he'll be Bush III? Is Iraq the only reason? Hell, McCain isn't some psychopath bent on world domination, or destroying America as we know it!

what if some want him to destroy America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdN4hA-rB0

what if some want him to destroy America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdN4hA-rB0

"Torturing the handicapped with flamethrowers"?

*pulls out UZI* Bring it on!:p

No, it'll be the beginning of America as a one-party state, with a Supreme Court stacked with Neo-con or Religious Right Justices and a probable war with Iran. In short:utter disaster.

If that happens, what's to stop the united states from destroying itself?

Your retardo smiley avatar is win.

Thanks! I saw it on a cake.

http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs31/i/2008/201/a/9/imhappycakeplz_by_nintendrawer.jpg

Yeah, I voted for Ron Paul as well...

As I've said before, either way we the people are screwed. We are going to see the shit hit the fan in the next few years.

Yeah, I voted for Ron Paul as well...

As I've said before, either way we the people are screwed. We are going to see the shit hit the fan in the next few years.

as much as it pains me to admit it, McCain will not be as bad as Bush is, even if he seems to want to continue his policies. he actually has some intelligence it would appear, other than that stupid Paris/Britney ad.

McCain wants to militarize the police. Obama wants to create a million-man militarized 'civilian' police force. Where's the substantive difference? Neither candidate will support freedom. Neither candidate will retract Bush's numerous executive orders. Neither candidate will curtail the alphabet soup of agencies. Neither candidate will restore State authority in education, taxation, welfare, or any other power not explicitly granted to the federal government. Neither party offers a solution to the national debt or the rampant inflation caused by the Federal Reserve. Both candidates will try to excise the portions of the constitution that restrain presidential power. Clinton was bad, Bush 2 is worse, and I don't expect any improvement from Obama or McCain. I will vote third party, probably Chuck Baldwin.

TRUE change, change for the better, will only come if by some miracle Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination. If enough McCain delegates abstain from voting in the first round, there's still a chance for Ron Paul to win.

McCain wants to militarize the police. Obama wants to create a million-man militarized 'civilian' police force. Where's the substantive difference? Neither candidate will support freedom. Neither candidate will retract Bush's numerous executive orders. Neither candidate will curtail the alphabet soup of agencies. Neither candidate will restore State authority in education, taxation, welfare, or any other power not explicitly granted to the federal government. Both candidates will try to excise the portions of the constitution that restrain presidential power. Clinton was bad, Bush 2 is worse, and I don't expect any improvement from Obama or McCain. I will vote third party, probably Chuck Baldwin.

Very well said.

I'm still writing Ron Paul in though:tongue:

Thanks! I saw it on a cake.

http://fc03.deviantart.com/fs31/i/2008/201/a/9/imhappycakeplz_by_nintendrawer.jpg

This is my favorite thing ever.

I'm actually a little confused--McCain has been known to break party lines in the past, and be a quite moderate conservative, so why assume he'll be Bush III? Is Iraq the only reason? Hell, McCain isn't some psychopath bent on world domination, or destroying America as we know it!

The big R next to his name blinds Skyland from everything else.

On the actual issue, if it works at curbing the current crime frenzy going on in the inner cities today, why not drop a ton of police on the ground.

Uhh... when has lots of police NOT helped? While I'm not a very big McCain supporter, I have to agree on his suggestion to increase Police activity. LA, Miami, and Phoenix to name a few are all crime ridden hell holes that could do with a little more discipline.

And what exactly are you Obama supporters angry about? McCain just wants Police, Obama wants an American SA type organization to do his bidding!

Uhh... when has lots of police NOT helped? While I'm not a very big McCain supporter, I have to agree on his suggestion to increase Police activity. LA, Miami, and Phoenix to name a few are all crime ridden hell holes that could do with a little more discipline.

And what exactly are you Obama supporters angry about? McCain just wants Police, Obama wants an American SA type organization to do his bidding!

OHMYGODNOHEDOESNOT.

This is what's so frustrating about election years. All it takes is for someone to say something dumb, with little to no justification, and then instead of researching, like responsible voters, people just listen. If you had heard more than 17 seconds of Obama's speech, he was clearly talking about the Peace Corps and Americorps, not arming civilians to chase criminals.

And as for McCain, couldn't it be the case that he's not saying we should have the military start firebombing city blocks? Maybe all he means is that, in order to reduce crime in particularly rough areas, we should take a neighborhood by neighborhood approach, ferreting out whatever we can in each. Instead of being shortstaffed everywhere, we just make sure we have enough in one area at a time and focus on each district that way. Good lord.

Just because Ron Paul didn't get the nomination doesn't mean that everyone else is a fascist.

If anyone here has been down to Gentilly in New Orleans, I compel you to NOT compare it to how some parts of Iraq are right now. The place is ridden with drugs, and I for one think that McCain has a bright idea on this one.

If anyone here has been down to Gentilly in New Orleans, I compel you to NOT compare it to how some parts of Iraq are right now. The place is ridden with drugs, and I for one think that McCain has a bright idea on this one.

That's the thing, though. McCain isn't suggesting we should put troops on the streets like Berlusconi has done in Italy. He's suggesting that police should utilize surge-type tactics. That they should focus their force on problem areas, neutralize those problems, and then continue on.

C'mon. Don't feed Zilam and Skyland Mt.'s absurd paranoia.

That's the thing, though. McCain isn't suggesting we should put troops on the streets like Berlusconi has done in Italy. He's suggesting that police should utilize surge-type tactics. That they should focus their force on problem areas, neutralize those problems, and then continue on.

C'mon. Don't feed Zilam and Skyland Mt.'s absurd paranoia.

EXACTLY. Which is what I said, like, 3 posts ago. And even though I am very much pro-Obama, I agree with you two. This is a non-issue, just like it was when Obama was talking about increasing support for Americorps. I just wish people would pay attention before getting all riled up.

EXACTLY. Which is what I said, like, 3 posts ago. And even though I am very much pro-Obama, I agree with you two. This is a non-issue, just like it was when Obama was talking about increasing support for Americorps. I just wish people would pay attention before getting all riled up.

But...but...that would be asking people to act prudent, and lord knows that they'll never, ever want to do that!

Heck, when I read the ABC blog, McCain even got a good dig in on Gonzo when discussing this matter. Zilam really needs to learn how to read.

That's the thing, though. McCain isn't suggesting we should put troops on the streets like Berlusconi has done in Italy. He's suggesting that police should utilize surge-type tactics. That they should focus their force on problem areas, neutralize those problems, and then continue on.

C'mon. Don't feed Zilam and Skyland Mt.'s absurd paranoia.

Paranoia my arse.

Again he said that he would like to use the military tactics that we use in Iraq. Random raids, check points, guards every where, so on and so forth. And guess what, it will end up being even more like Iraq when you have a large urban populations rising against the fascist machine. The gov't never once has cared about people in the inner city, and now they have the gall to go in and try to dictate their lives through brutality and force? What's that about? Like I said, if the gov't really cares about stopping crime, then they need to tackle the factors of it, and not just the outcomes. So, take on education and poverty in the inner city and better the lives of the people, instead of harassing people who already have shit lives.

Paranoia.:rolleyes:

I can't find the part where he talks about introducing checkpoints, armed guards and random raids. Can you give me a link to it?

Again he said that he would like to use the military tactics that we use in Iraq. Random raids, check points, guards every where, so on and so forth.

Did he say that those were the specific tactics he wanted to employ, or is that just what you read?

I certainly agree that we should work, first and foremost, on improving the socioeconomic conditions that would help lower crime. I may disagree with McCain on this policy of increasing police involvement. (I haven't decided yet.) However, what I certainly disagree with is reading things into his quotes that he didn't say. Nowhere did he mention martial law; nowhere did he mention armed guards on every corner; nowhere did he mention expanding the rights of law enforcement officers. You see "tactics that we use in Iraq," and you think "tactics we use in a full combat warzone." Not all of Iraq is in a full combat warzone. The measures taken in one instance as opposed to the other are not necessarily (and not even probably) similar. Is he advocating more force? Probably. So argue against that, not whether he's locking down city blocks and gassing people. The latter is ridiculous.

I can't find the part where he talks about introducing checkpoints, armed guards and random raids. Can you give me a link to it?

The part where he suggests using the tactics that are being used in Iraq, which amount to that. Sometimes you don't have to say something fully and detailed to say what you mean.

The part where he suggests using the tactics that are being used in Iraq, which amount to that. Sometimes you don't have to say something fully and detailed to say what you mean.

So of all the ridiculously broad myriad of strategies that are used in Iraq, or any warzone for that matter, you've picked some at random and chosen to assign them to McCain? That's not fair. You know what else they do in warzones? They dig latrines. Why don't we assume that that's what he meant? He just meant he wanted to dig latrines in problematic areas of the US. After all, I have just as much reason to assume that this is what he meant as you do to assume what you've asserted he meant-- namely, it's a tactic used in Iraq.

Man, I'm sympathetic to your cause; I really am. But this is just bad logic.

That's the thing, though. McCain isn't suggesting we should put troops on the streets like Berlusconi has done in Italy. He's suggesting that police should utilize surge-type tactics. That they should focus their force on problem areas, neutralize those problems, and then continue on.

C'mon. Don't feed Zilam and Skyland Mt.'s absurd paranoia.

People keep saying 'paranoia'.

What does "like we use in the military" mean?

What does "You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down" mean?

What does "you provide a secure environment" mean?

What does "you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control" mean?


How does one make sure 'known criminals' are being 'kept under control'? What is clamping down?

Without a lot more information, that actualy looks a lot more like martial law, than just 'surging' numbers.

So of all the ridiculously broad myriad of strategies that are used in Iraq, or any warzone for that matter, you've picked some at random and chosen to assign them to McCain? That's not fair. You know what else they do in warzones? They dig latrines. Why don't we assume that that's what he meant? He just meant he wanted to dig latrines in problematic areas of the US. After all, I have just as much reason to assume that this is what he meant as you do to assume what you've asserted he meant-- namely, it's a tactic used in Iraq.

Man, I'm sympathetic to your cause; I really am. But this is just bad logic.

Not really. The specific phrasing is somewhere between ambiguous and... I don't know... menacing?

I'll quote myself:

Is he advocating more force? Probably. So argue against that, not whether he's locking down city blocks and gassing people. The latter is ridiculous.

I'll quote myself:

In response to what? You just liked that quote?

Of course - it's a nonsense. Saying it like no one ever gassed their own people, or carried out persecutive actions against people living in their nation... suggesting that such things would be 'ridiculous' (by which - one suspects - you mean, "not even worth considering") sounds logically fallacious.

And it IS an appeal to ridicule, as I'm sure you know. If the troops tactics are checkpoints and curfews, those wouldn't be too much of a stretch to envision... so you don't talk about THAT, you try to divert attention with talk of chemical warfare.

Don't blame me.... I voted for Ron Paul.

If McCain wins the election, don't blame me... I'm not voting... The same goes for Obama.

Anyone who CAN vote, and doesn't vote, gets the president they deserve - whoever it is.

That whole "I'm not voting" thing is so annoying. The amount of people that DON'T vote in elections, that could... if they REALLY wanted change, they'd actually form Reform Parties, set up candidates and do something that would gain attention.

I immediately equate 'I'm not voting' with "I'm lazy and apathetic, but not willing to take the blame".

People keep saying 'paranoia'.

What does "like we use in the military" mean?

What does "You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down" mean?

What does "you provide a secure environment" mean?

What does "you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control" mean?


How does one make sure 'known criminals' are being 'kept under control'? What is clamping down?

Without a lot more information, that actualy looks a lot more like martial law, than just 'surging' numbers.

The thing is, he is being more specific than that. He referenced the law and order policies Giuliani put in place in NYC. He has compared policies that are already in place and in use to military tactics. He did not advocate using military tactics.

Paranoia my arse.

Again he said that he would like to use the military tactics that we use in Iraq. Random raids, check points, guards every where, so on and so forth. And guess what, it will end up being even more like Iraq when you have a large urban populations rising against the fascist machine. The gov't never once has cared about people in the inner city, and now they have the gall to go in and try to dictate their lives through brutality and force? What's that about? Like I said, if the gov't really cares about stopping crime, then they need to tackle the factors of it, and not just the outcomes. So, take on education and poverty in the inner city and better the lives of the people, instead of harassing people who already have shit lives.

Paranoia

To start off with, what he said was he praised the law enforcement policies that Giuliani put in place when he was Mayor of New York, policies that have not led to riots and uprisings against some sort of bogeyman fascist machine that does not exist. He then compared this strategic emphasis of stabilize first, develop second to what has been put in place in Iraq. He's not actively proposing new domestic policies here...he's merely reiterating what has already been done.

Furthermore, he highlighted the fact that police should be heavily scrutinized, and that they should be held accountable.

In response, McCain promised aggressive prosecution of civil rights violations and a Justice Department free from political cronyism.

"U.S. attorneys will be appointed strictly on the basis of qualifications and not political connections," McCain said, a swipe at the Bush Administration Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

That hardly sounds like a fascist police state.

So,yes, paranoia. Lots of it.

The part where he suggests using the tactics that are being used in Iraq, which amount to that. Sometimes you don't have to say something fully and detailed to say what you mean.

Maybe he is advocating an $18bn reconstruction plan for crime ridden areas. Maybe he's advocating neither; maybe some people are reading too far into what people say. Maybe you are not clairvoyant enough to claim to know what McCain really thinks.

The thing is, he is being more specific than that. He referenced the law and order policies Giuliani put in place in NYC. He has compared policies that are already in place and in use to military tactics. He did not advocate using military tactics.

I don't think that's what this says, at all:

"Answering a question at the Urban League about his approach to combating crime, John McCain suggested that military strategies currently employed by US troops in Iraq could be applied to high crime neighborhoods here in the US.

McCain at first praised the crime-fighting efforts of Rudolph Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City. Then he down-shifted into an approach that sounded considerably harsher.

McCain called them tactics "somewhat like we use in the military.""

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/a-surge-on-the.html

I think it says that McCain was asked about his approach to combating crime, and that he suggested military strategies currently employed in Iraq could be applied to high crime neighbourhoods in the US. I think it says he first praised the crime-fighting efforts of Rudolph Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City. I think it also says that he then went on to talk about his tactics.

Why do I think it says that? Because that's the actual wording.


Of course, it's also worth pointing out that Giuliani's approach earned it's own share of criticism for it's heavyhanded brutality and trangression of civil rights...

To start off with, what he said was he praised the law enforcement policies that Giuliani put in place when he was Mayor of New York, policies that have not led to riots and uprisings against some sort of bogeyman fascist machine that does not exist. He then compared this strategic emphasis of stabilize first, develop second to what has been put in place in Iraq. He's not actively proposing new domestic policies here...he's merely reiterating what has already been done.


The ABC source says you are wrong. The ABC source says that he was commenting, not on old policy, but in response to what he envisioned as HIS policy.

So,yes, paranoia. Lots of it.

Or not. The phrase 'paranoia' suggests baseless fear. Considering McCain's own words, and his Party's recent history of raping constitutional rights, there's nothing baseless about it.

Yep, that'll work. You know, except that criminal elements can pack up en masse and move to more fertile grounds. ANd except that soldiers act as targets that criminals have no interest in attacking and are only interested in avoiding. Oh, and except that American cities and the surrounding suburbs each contain millions of people and would require more soldiers than we have by an order of magnitude to control...assuming criminals wouldn't just pack up and move.

So other than those teensy little holes, sounds like a good plan. Oh, and there's that whole Constitution thingy. :p

As The Simpsons taught me, the PATRIOT Act renders the constitution useless. How else could 8 year old Ralph Wiggum run for president?

Mac Attack has a good point, I would rather see crime rates go down, then up.

On the other hand, McCain could become an iron-fisted dictator and we become a police state, but I don't fore see that happening anytime soon.

McCain wants military presence in American streets!
OK, it's not a shining endorsement of freedom and social healing, but saying that McCain wants a 'militray presence' on US streets is bunk, at least from that quote you've given.

He's saying he wants "military tactics" not militarypersonell. That's a big difference. Many police forces throughout the world use "military tactics" already, and again, I'm not endorsing such measures, but let's try and stem the hyperbole.


Fuck me, Alex Jones was right after all.
I lol'd.

Mac Attack has a good point, I would rather see crime rates go down, then up.

On the other hand, McCain could become an iron-fisted dictator and we become a police state, but I don't fore see that happening anytime soon.

If you really want to see crime rates go down, you need to decriminalise everything. Suddenly, 0 crime!

As a side note why is it that the first election I actually get to vote in is a choice between an old ex-military schmuck and a young closet socialist schmuck with a grand total of four years of political experience at a national level?

I, nay, the American People, deserve a candidate who isn't a schmuck!

Eh, fuck this I'm voting for myself.

/rant

OHMYGODNOHEDOESNOT.

This is what's so frustrating about election years. All it takes is for someone to say something dumb, with little to no justification, and then instead of researching, like responsible voters, people just listen. If you had heard more than 17 seconds of Obama's speech, he was clearly talking about the Peace Corps and Americorps, not arming civilians to chase criminals.

And as for McCain, couldn't it be the case that he's not saying we should have the military start firebombing city blocks? Maybe all he means is that, in order to reduce crime in particularly rough areas, we should take a neighborhood by neighborhood approach, ferreting out whatever we can in each. Instead of being shortstaffed everywhere, we just make sure we have enough in one area at a time and focus on each district that way. Good lord.

Just because Ron Paul didn't get the nomination doesn't mean that everyone else is a fascist.

Well said.

EXACTLY. Which is what I said, like, 3 posts ago. And even though I am very much pro-Obama, I agree with you two. This is a non-issue, just like it was when Obama was talking about increasing support for Americorps. I just wish people would pay attention before getting all riled up.

That requires common sense Giapo.

Paranoia my arse.

Again he said that he would like to use the military tactics that we use in Iraq. Random raids, check points, guards every where, so on and so forth.

Military tactics =/= using military.

And guess what, it will end up being even more like Iraq when you have a large urban populations rising against the fascist machine.

Nice catch phrase

The gov't never once has cared about people in the inner city, and now they have the gall to go in and try to dictate their lives through brutality and force? What's that about? Like I said, if the gov't really cares about stopping crime, then they need to tackle the factors of it, and not just the outcomes. So, take on education and poverty in the inner city and better the lives of the people, instead of harassing people who already have shit lives.

Paranoia.:rolleyes:

Yep it is paranoia.

The part where he suggests using the tactics that are being used in Iraq, which amount to that. Sometimes you don't have to say something fully and detailed to say what you mean.

So you do not have proof that checkpoints and raids will be used. Ok. That is settled.

The thing is, he is being more specific than that. He referenced the law and order policies Giuliani put in place in NYC. He has compared policies that are already in place and in use to military tactics. He did not advocate using military tactics.

YEP! To bad people will not see that.

The part where he suggests using the tactics that are being used in Iraq, which amount to that. Sometimes you don't have to say something fully and detailed to say what you mean.
The tactics are a good idea, in fact, they're copied from good policing and applied to what the military is doing in Iraq more than the other way around. The idea is to create a good relationship between the populace and the people that guard the public peace, so that you end up with a populace that trusts the police as opposed to one that impedes its ability to address criminal activity.
This is what tactics in Iraq he's talking about: Creating a bond of trust by having the police or military out patrolling and showing the populace "We're here for you."

Your accusations against McCain on this count are ridiculous.

I think it says that McCain was asked about his approach to combating crime, and that he suggested military strategies currently employed in Iraq could be applied to high crime neighbourhoods in the US. I think it says he first praised the crime-fighting efforts of Rudolph Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City. I think it also says that he then went on to talk about his tactics.

Why do I think it says that? Because that's the actual wording.

What I read is that he praises Giuliani's strategy, and then utilizes a military metaphor for a similar strategy. He extends upon what Giuliani has done though, by also arguing for improvements in education and infrastructure. Here is his speech to the Urban League...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/mccain_at_the_national_urban_l.html

Once again, it doesn't sound like the paranoid babble that Zilam and Skyland have been putting out.

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that Giuliani's approach earned it's own share of criticism for it's heavyhanded brutality and trangression of civil rights...

I already addressed that. The evidence indicates that he wants a high degree of oversight from the Justice department in regards to civil rights violations.

The ABC source says you are wrong. The ABC source says that he was commenting, not on old policy, but in response to what he envisioned as HIS policy.

To start off with, the focused strategies employed in "the Surge" were pioneered by law enforcement around the country. So to say that employing these strategies is some sort of new policy is ridiculous. City governments and police departments have employed these for years, in every field of law enforcement from dealing with gang violence, to traffic cops.

So, reading the OP, I might be tempted to think that the Left now has a fake alarmist answer to all the fake alarmists on the Right who were "panicked" about Obama's proposed civilian security force which would have a similar role to the one McCain is proposing.

There's such balance in nature.

For real political change for the better, we MUST vote third party. Both major parties will only work for the Status Quo, and history has shown that the status quo means the erosion of real freedoms in exchange for fake security. A militarized police will not bring security or freedom. We already have massive problems of police executing no-knock warrants and shooting people at THE WRONG ADDRESS during drug raids. How can it get more messed up than that? Just wait and see what Obama or McCain push through and you'll find out.

So, reading the OP, I might be tempted to think that the Left now has a fake alarmist answer to all the fake alarmists on the Right who were "panicked" about Obama's proposed civilian security force which would have a similar role to the one McCain is proposing.

There's such balance in nature.

My thoughts exactly (except you were more eloquent).

So, reading the OP, I might be tempted to think that the Left now has a fake alarmist answer to all the fake alarmists on the Right who were "panicked" about Obama's proposed civilian security force which would have a similar role to the one McCain is proposing.

There's such balance in nature.

well as we've witnessed since 9/11, using fear instead of hope is the way to get elected now...

What I read is that he praises Giuliani's strategy, and then utilizes a military metaphor for a similar strategy. He extends upon what Giuliani has done though, by also arguing for improvements in education and infrastructure. Here is his speech to the Urban League...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/mccain_at_the_national_urban_l.html

Once again, it doesn't sound like the paranoid babble that Zilam and Skyland have been putting out.

I must be slow today. I'm missing it.

What does this have to do with the topic?

I must be slow today. I'm missing it.

What does this have to do with the topic?

The "surge" comments were made at the Urban League Conference in Florida, after McCain gave the speech, whose text I linked to. I provided the speech to give context to these remarks. Targeting police presence, and targeting development in troubled areas is what McCain is talking about.

In other words, he used the military metaphor for his argument, which is that you have to make it safe, in order to improve the quality of life, and you have to improve the quality of life to make it permanently safe.

The "surge" comments were made at the Urban League Conference in Florida, after McCain gave the speech, whose text I linked to. I provided the speech to give context to these remarks. Targeting police presence, and targeting development in troubled areas is what McCain is talking about.

So - the comments we're discussing, have absolutely nothing to do with the speech you posted, is what you're trying to say.

Thanks for wasting like 5 minutes of my life.

So - the comments we're discussing, have absolutely nothing to do with the speech you posted, is what you're trying to say.

Thanks for wasting like 5 minutes of my life.

They have everything to do with what McCain said. They provide the context within which these comments were made.

Further, listen to what McCain said, you can hear the audio clip on Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/02/mccain-suggests-iraqi-war-like-clampdown-to-deal-with-inner-city-crime/#comments). It's pretty straightforward that he's comparing what Giuliani did to what is now being done in Iraq. He's not even proposing anything, he's just praising and describing what Giuliani has done, and using the military metaphor.

They have everything to do with what McCain said. They provide the context within which these comments were made.


They do no such thing. I'm beginning to wonder if you are being deliberately obstructive, and posting things you KNOW have no bearing.

You posted comments that are from the same venue, even on the same evening. Okay. But, they were from a prepared speech - not from the question and answer part. I also noticed (which is why I asked about relevence) that McCain's speech had absolutely nothing to do with crime.

So, I ask you for relevence... and you talk about context, where there clearly is none. It might as well have beena different venue on a different night - the only connection between the two excerpts is that the same person is speaking in each.


Further, listen to what McCain said, you can hear the audio clip on Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/02/mccain-suggests-iraqi-war-like-clampdown-to-deal-with-inner-city-crime/#comments). It's pretty straightforward that he's comparing what Giuliani did to what is now being done in Iraq. He's not even proposing anything, he's just praising and describing what Giuliani has done, and using the military metaphor.

First - I actually can't hear the audio clip at crooksandliars. Something to do with the work computer, no doubt. But, I can hear the audio clip at Youtube - which I must assume is the same clip.

According to the transcript at crooksandliars, an "audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime".

Listening to the answer McCain gives - he says "We know that there's some cities in America where the murder rate is... is gone way, way up. And, obviously, we need to do... the obvious. We might look at what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City, when he became Mayor of that city. He turned it into a city that really, none of us were comfortable in walking through the streets... to one that's basically... safe. And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..." etc.


So - is this innocent? Have you really not heard the whole answer? Did you not get the question? Or - is this deliberate obfuscation on your part?

McCain is clearly giving a very-off-the-cuff policy answer, on how to address urban crime. It's unfortunate that he chooses the NYC model. It's unfortunate that he goes on to expand on it, drawing parallels with operations in Iraq. He didn't have to do either of those things - but that's the answer he DID give.

I wonder what you think: "...the murder rate is... is gone way, way up. And, obviously, we need to do... the obvious..." actually means?

It's vague enough to fit plausible deniability, perhaps. But - is that the argument you really want to make?


EDIT: Link to the Youtube copy of the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md8MkPy7asQ

They do no such thing. I'm beginning to wonder if you are being deliberately obstructive, and posting things you KNOW have no bearing.

You posted comments that are from the same venue, even on the same evening. Okay. But, they were from a prepared speech - not from the question and answer part. I also noticed (which is why I asked about relevence) that McCain's speech had absolutely nothing to do with crime.

So, I ask you for relevence... and you talk about context, where there clearly is none. It might as well have beena different venue on a different night - the only connection between the two excerpts is that the same person is speaking in each.

And, in each speech, he's talking about the problems facing inner cities. This is part of policy facing inner cities, it's not some sort of fascist crackdown, it's part of a broader strategy to confront the challenges of inner cities, in both the short and long term. It is relevant.


So - is this innocent? Have you really not heard the whole answer? Did you not get the question? Or - is this deliberate obfuscation on your part?

I heard the whole answer, and it's pretty clear what he's saying. He's not advocating what Zilam and Skyland are claiming he's advocating. There is nothing further from the truth. It is an unreasonable reading to read it like that. Don't you think that if that were the case, the President of the Urban League would have picked up on that as part of his follow up?

McCain is clearly giving a very-off-the-cuff policy answer, on how to address urban crime. It's unfortunate that he chooses the NYC model. It's unfortunate that he goes on to expand on it, drawing parallels with operations in Iraq. He didn't have to do either of those things - but that's the answer he DID give.

He praised the strategy Giuliani implemented to the strategy that has been implemented as part of "the Surge" in Iraq. He's not comparing tactics, because they aren't comparable.

Beyond that, he quite clearly recognizes that there were significant civil rights problems that evolved out of Giuliani's policies, and he advocates that there be strict oversight of the police, and that civil rights violators are aggressively pursued. Or, are you going to ignore this part of his answer once again?

I wonder what you think: "...the murder rate is... is gone way, way up. And, obviously, we need to do... the obvious..." actually means?

It means that we need to increase policing. We need to put more cops on the streets, and we need to

It's vague enough to fit plausible deniability, perhaps. But - is that the argument you really want to make?

There's no evidence, whatsoever, indicating he wants to use military tactics on the ground, that he wants to use soldiers in our cities. He is merely articulating a broad policing strategy. There's nothing vague about it, he's endorsing the strategy Giuliani put in place in New York City.

And, in each speech....

Which, I notice, you ignore.

Well, I don't feel like I wasted time transcribing what was said, because I - of the two of us - actually gained the benefit from that effort.

Instead, you pointlessly ramble on about stuff that he didn't say, that perhaps you wish he had (so you're argument might not be wholecloth)... or deny he said the things he did.

Okay. I'm bored with you. Pretend things don't happen if it makes you feel better, but don't waste my time with it.

Which, I notice, you ignore.

Well, I don't feel like I wasted time transcribing what was said, because I - of the two of us - actually gained the benefit from that effort.

You certainly gained something from it, although I am not entirely sure it has anything to do with reality.

Now, do tell me, what, exactly, do you think he said? What do you read into his commentary?

Instead, you pointlessly ramble on about stuff that he didn't say, that perhaps you wish he had (so you're argument might not be wholecloth)... or deny he said the things he did.

What am I denying he said? He praised Giuliani's policing strategies and compared them to the strategies that were later implemented in "the Surge." He didn't propose deploying troops or checkpoints or warrantless domestic searches to fight crime. He didn't propose any specific tactics at all.

Okay. I'm bored with you. Pretend things don't happen if it makes you feel better, but don't waste my time with it.

So, in other words, you don't know how to respond. How convenient that this is the case a second time, in a thread where you support an absurd point of view to which there is absolutely no evidence. Just like the "Invade Venezuela" thread, you've embraced some sort of bizarre, indefensible argument, ignored evidence to the contrary and generally made a fool of yourself.

So, in other words, you don't know how to respond. How convenient that this is the case a second time, in a thread where you support an absurd point of view to which there is absolutely no evidence. Just like the "Invade Venezuela" thread, you've embraced some sort of bizarre, indefensible argument, ignored evidence to the contrary and generally made a fool of yourself.

This.

Thats twice now that Grave_n_idle has given the distinct impression of being a member of the tinfoil hats brigade.

This.

Thats twice now that Grave_n_idle has given the distinct impression of being a member of the tinfoil hats brigade.

The weird part is, I don't even support either of the measures that have been claimed as imminent.

The weird part is, I don't even support either of the measures that have been claimed as imminent.

Me neither. I can't think of anything much worse than martial law or another invasion, but its too much of a stretch to consider these as likely outcomes. The image conjured is one of Nixonian paranoia, with conspiring bogeymen in every closet.

So, in other words, you don't know how to respond. How convenient that this is the case a second time, in a thread where you support an absurd point of view to which there is absolutely no evidence. Just like the "Invade Venezuela" thread...

I don't know how to respond, you're right.

I've actually taken the time to transcribe exactly what McCain DID say, and yet you keep on alluding to some other conversation. You keep talking about things he didn't say, and ignoring what he actually said.

And - I know he said it - because I transcribed it. I even linked to the youtube file, and wrote it out for you.

Yes - I don't know how to respond. I feel like I'm showing you a piece of paper with "Hi, my name is John" on it, and you're waffling about some girl called Betty, and claiming that the paper doesn't even mention a "John".

Which - is boring. I see no advantage to discussing what was said, if you refuse to even accept that what was said, was said.

I notice you still haven't actually touched what was actually presented.

Instead - you're going to change the topic to a different thread where (apparently) we've disagreed.


...you've embraced some sort of bizarre, indefensible argument, ignored evidence to the contrary and generally made a fool of yourself

For real. You've consistently refused to engage the actual transcript. You presented a DIFFERENT speech as your evidence one time, and failed to deal with the actual transcript when I provided it.

You probably are blissfully unaware of how earthshakingly ironic your comment appears.

I don't know how to respond, you're right.

I've actually taken the time to transcribe exactly what McCain DID say, and yet you keep on alluding to some other conversation. You keep talking about things he didn't say, and ignoring what he actually said.

And - I know he said it - because I transcribed it. I even linked to the youtube file, and wrote it out for you.

Yes - I don't know how to respond. I feel like I'm showing you a piece of paper with "Hi, my name is John" on it, and you're waffling about some girl called Betty, and claiming that the paper doesn't even mention a "John".

Which - is boring. I see no advantage to discussing what was said, if you refuse to even accept that what was said, was said.

I notice you still haven't actually touched what was actually presented.

Instead - you're going to change the topic to a different thread where (apparently) we've disagreed.



For real. You've consistently refused to engage the actual transcript. You presented a DIFFERENT speech as your evidence one time, and failed to deal with the actual transcript when I provided it.

You probably are blissfully unaware of how earthshakingly ironic your comment appears.

You know what, I don't even know how to respond to you.

I have addressed what McCain said, and I've shown, hands down, that your interpretation of what he said is wrong. Your interpretation is entirely out of line with reality. I provided the outside link to show that what he said was part of a comprehensive plan to confront the challenges of our inner cities.

Further, I've referenced the follow-up question that the President of the Urban League asked him after he made is "Surge" metaphor. That, most certainly is relevant.

Finally, to even come to the conclusion that a major party candidate would suggest what you are saying he is suggesting is patently absurd.

Yet, for all of this, you continue to ignore what I am saying. Are you daft?

He said he wanted to do it like they do in Iraq. I don't care if its military or police. I don't want road blocks, check points, random searches, racial profiling, so on and so forth, going on in my streets. If they want to stop crime they can go after the root of the problem: poor education and poverty.

Although it's clear that McCain isn't advocating for any of those things, we already do all of them routinely. Might want to ask a LEO what his/her job is about, if you know any. The police and p/p officers randomly search prisoners, parolees, probationers, drivers and, yes, "random" people constantly. The police can stop anyone they suspect of criminal activity - they'll usually tell you that you're similar in description to a wanted man/woman, but it can be completely discretionary. And checkpoints? You've never seen a DUI checkpoint in your town? Do you think DUI checkpoints are only about stopping intoxicated drivers? Ever crossed into Mexico or Canada? Some of the checkpoints are well inland, e.g. San Clemente. It would be nice to see less abuse, but stopping crime is also about stopping criminals - even if, by some miracle of pedagogy, we could 'breed' criminality out of our kids, we've still got a large number of active criminals who aren't likely to be retroactively improved.

You know what, I don't even know how to respond to you.


Uh - Yuh!


I have addressed what McCain said,


No. Let me re-present it:

"We know that there's some cities in America where the murder rate is... is gone way, way up. And, obviously, we need to do... the obvious. We might look at what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City, when he became Mayor of that city. He turned it into a city that really, none of us were comfortable in walking through the streets... to one that's basically... safe. And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..."

According to your source: "an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime".

So - Our frame work is - McCain answering the question "how do you plan to reduce urban crime"?

Your answer clearly ignores that - and ignores the transcript I provided. Hell - you even actually completely cut the transcript OUT of your reply, last time.


...and I've shown, hands down, that your interpretation of what he said is wrong.


You've done no such thing.

You've pretended McCain said something else - which, as a basic read of the transcript shows... he didn't.


Your interpretation is entirely out of line with reality. I provided the outside link to show that what he said was part of a comprehensive plan to confront the challenges of our inner cities.


You have?

Oh - would that be the speech you presented that didn't mention crime, at all?


Further, I've referenced the follow-up question that the President of the Urban League asked him after he made is "Surge" metaphor. That, most certainly is relevant.


By 'referenced', I assume you mean, just that - a reference. Not a quote, or an example of how it applied. Hell, it wasn't what was said that you referenced. You apparently think that suggesting someone DIDN'T mention something, is evidence of your argument.


Finally, to even come to the conclusion that a major party candidate would suggest what you are saying he is suggesting is patently absurd.


I wonder what it is you really think I am "saying he is suggesting"?


Yet, for all of this, you continue to ignore what I am saying.


The irony.

I feel like I'm playing Trivial Pursuit: Holocaust Denial Edition with the Iranian champion...

Uh - Yuh!

Yeah, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, or are just naturally daft.



No. Let me re-present it:

"We know that there's some cities in America where the murder rate is... is gone way, way up. And, obviously, we need to do... the obvious. We might look at what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City, when he became Mayor of that city. He turned it into a city that really, none of us were comfortable in walking through the streets... to one that's basically... safe. And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..."

According to your source: "an audience member asked him how he planned to reduce urban crime".

So - Our frame work is - McCain answering the question "how do you plan to reduce urban crime"?

Your answer clearly ignores that - and ignores the transcript I provided. Hell - you even actually completely cut the transcript OUT of your reply, last time.

My answer is he wants to have tried and true policing tactics, like what Giuliani did in New York, implemented. That's all he said.

You've done no such thing.

[QUOTE=]You've pretended McCain said something else - which, as a basic read of the transcript shows... he didn't.

No, you're the one who's reading absurdities into what he said. He is not saying he wants to put troops on the streets, he doesn't want warrantless searches, checkpoints or such. He wants an increased police presence in troubled areas to improve safety.





That speech had everything to do with the comments he made on crime. It has everything to do with what McCain is proposing needs to be done once security is increased in the inner cities.



[QUOTE=]By 'referenced', I assume you mean, just that - a reference. Not a quote, or an example of how it applied. Hell, it wasn't what was said that you referenced. You apparently think that suggesting someone DIDN'T mention something, is evidence of your argument.

I didn't feel that I needed to directly quote what he said.

I said that McCain's response to the President's question was that McCain wanted to have aggressive civil rights violations prosecutions.

It applies because it proves beyond any sort of doubt, except for that of the paranoiac, that McCain is not supporting some sort of fascist police state. He's supporting a restrained law and order campaign.



I wonder what it is you really think I am "saying he is suggesting"?

Same thing as Zilam and Skyland.

The irony.

I feel like I'm playing Trivial Pursuit: Holocaust Denial Edition with the Iranian champion...

It is ironic, because you keep doing it.

I am surprised I didn't see a thread on this around here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/02/mccain-suggests-iraqi-war-like-clampdown-to-deal-with-inner-city-crime/#comments

Audio is on the page. He said this:




and a trusted source(one not so biased, at least)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/a-surge-on-the.html

Mmm, I love the smell of a police state in the morning. Seriously Mr. McCain, you think this will solve anything? You fascist pig. And guess what? People are still willing to vote for him...And here is worse news, its not just McCain that supports this type of "crime deterrence". Chicago democrat, and current governor Rod "I'm a tool" Blagoveich, does as well (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5392684) So, I suppose we aren't really safe with either party in office. -sigh- This type of news always depresses me. Oh well, back to making petrol bombs. :)

Greetings,

Well as long as you are not biased about it... :)

As a Canadian I know that a ton of American are either loyal Democrats or loyal Republicans so maybe as an outsider I can see a different between Bush Jr (fascist in so called democrat clothing) and McCain (centrist). Inner city violence in some US cities is ridiculous. We should value human life. We should protect the citizens who have to live there for economics reasons. Beat cops (police who walked on the streets) helped to clean up New York's crime problem somewhat so troops on the streets who are able to counter submachine gun touting criminals COULD be a positive towards helping. Then again, one trigger happy marine killing a kid with a gun could cause a riot so maybe let the citizens of each city decide whether they prefer troops, cameras, or some other method to better control crime then is the current state of affairs in US metro areas.

Cheers, ES

As The Simpsons taught me, the PATRIOT Act renders the constitution useless. How else could 8 year old Ralph Wiggum run for president?

This was just on the Simpsons? I was pretty sure it had actually happened.

No, you're the one who's reading absurdities into what he said. He is not saying he wants to put troops on the streets,
Fooled me.
He is saying he wants neighborhoods locked down which require an armed force on the streets. The police arn't equipped to handle anything like that.

Fooled me.
He is saying he wants neighborhoods locked down which require an armed force on the streets. The police arn't equipped to handle anything like that.

"We know that there's some cities in America where the murder rate is... is gone way, way up. And, obviously, we need to do... the obvious. We might look at what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City, when he became Mayor of that city. He turned it into a city that really, none of us were comfortable in walking through the streets... to one that's basically... safe. And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..."

To start off with, the US military is not equipped to serve as a domestic police force. The problems of being overstretched abroad would only be exasperated by forcing them into an unnatural domestic policing role. It's such a horrible idea that I cannot even comprehend anybody thinking it to be plausible.

Beyond that, McCain was supporting the strategy that Giuliani made use of in New York City, using the New York City Police Department. He says, and I quote, "And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..." He's quite clearly not advocating using military forces, he's drawing the military metaphor, he's comparing what Giuliani did in New York to what the US military has since done in Iraq. It's not a literal comparison, it's broad and loose. In the American political vocabulary the military metaphor is fairly common, that doesn't mean that the military is going to be used though.

Beyond that, McCain would have to overcome one of the oldest pieces of legislation on the books, the Posse Comitatus Act, to put troops on the streets.

I highlighted the word "those" tactics for a reason, the pronoun references back to what Giuliani did in New York, not to what is being done in Iraq. McCain wants to do what Giuliani did, only, with what ABC describes as "aggressive prosecution of civil rights violations and a Justice Department free from political cronyism."

To start off with, the US military is not equipped to serve as a domestic police force. The problems of being overstretched abroad would only be exasperated by forcing them into an unnatural domestic policing role. It's such a horrible idea that I cannot even comprehend anybody thinking it to be plausible.

Beyond that, McCain was supporting the strategy that Giuliani made use of in New York City, using the New York City Police Department. He says, and I quote, "And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..." He's quite clearly not advocating using military forces, he's drawing the military metaphor, he's comparing what Giuliani did in New York to what the US military has since done in Iraq. It's not a literal comparison, it's broad and loose. In the American political vocabulary the military metaphor is fairly common, that doesn't mean that the military is going to be used though.

Beyond that, McCain would have to overcome one of the oldest pieces of legislation on the books, the Posse Comitatus Act, to put troops on the streets.

Hey, why don't you quit boring us with your details? You're nothing but a detail monger, and you're the source of most of America's problems.

You know what, I don't even know how to respond to you.

I have addressed what McCain said, and I've shown, hands down, that your interpretation of what he said is wrong. Your interpretation is entirely out of line with reality. I provided the outside link to show that what he said was part of a comprehensive plan to confront the challenges of our inner cities.

Further, I've referenced the follow-up question that the President of the Urban League asked him after he made is "Surge" metaphor. That, most certainly is relevant.

Finally, to even come to the conclusion that a major party candidate would suggest what you are saying he is suggesting is patently absurd.

Yet, for all of this, you continue to ignore what I am saying. Are you daft?

We all know that GnI is daft.

Congratulations on being right.

Fooled me.
He is saying he wants neighborhoods locked down which require an armed force on the streets. The police arn't equipped to handle anything like that.

Which proves that you can not understand what is being said.

We all know that GnI is daft.


Congratulations on having absolutely nothing to say, except for targetting me for specific and irrelevent ad hominem attack.

Fell free to fuck off as hard as you can, if you've nothing un-pointless to say.

To start off with, the US military is not equipped to serve as a domestic police force.


Hey, your strawman. I never mentioned putting soldiers on the street.


The problems of being overstretched abroad would only be exasperated by forcing them into an unnatural domestic policing role. It's such a horrible idea that I cannot even comprehend anybody thinking it to be plausible.


Your lack of ability to comprehend isn't actually a very good assurance.

The military has guns and manpower - the two things (American) policing seems to consider to be fundamental. Anything over that is gravy.

Do I think the military will be used as a de facto police force? No.

Do I think they could? Absolutely.

Am I arguing they might, in this instance? No.


Beyond that, McCain was supporting the strategy that Giuliani made use of in New York City, using the New York City Police Department. He says, and I quote, "And... uh some of those tactics, very frankly... you mentioned the war in Iraq... are somewhat like that we use in the military.You go into the neighbourhoods, you clamp down..." He's quite clearly not advocating using military forces, he's drawing the military metaphor, he's comparing what Giuliani did in New York to what the US military has since done in Iraq. It's not a literal comparison, it's broad and loose. In the American political vocabulary the military metaphor is fairly common, that doesn't mean that the military is going to be used though.


You're ignoring the QUESTION. He was asked how he planned to reduce urban crime.

I'll make this easy for you - this means his answer will be a comment on his intention. So - when he says "we need to do... the obvious. We might look at what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City..." it's a reference to a policy decision.

He's not saying 'oh look' - he's saying 'AS POLICY, we might look..."

In context, talking about tactics isn't just a meander - he's actually fleshing out an, admittedly-loose-at-this-stage, response to the question.


Beyond that, McCain would have to overcome one of the oldest pieces of legislation on the books, the Posse Comitatus Act, to put troops on the streets.


And American Presidents have never dared to change any of the rules.


I highlighted the word "those" tactics for a reason, the pronoun references back to what Giuliani did in New York, not to what is being done in Iraq. McCain wants to do what Giuliani did, only, with what ABC describes as "aggressive prosecution of civil rights violations and a Justice Department free from political cronyism."

Where does the ABC quote come from? It looks like you're adding words, to try to change the meaning.

What Giuliani did was comparable to what the troops have been doing in Iraq. If McCain is offering this as his solution, he's offering a policy comparable to what troops are doing in Iraq.

Even HE says that those tactics are comparable to what we are doing in Iraq!

You know what they say... "Mussolini made the trains run on time." And now, we see countries like China and Russia with stricter governmental control having huge economic gains.

I wouldn't suggest having the government control the media or getting rid of basic human rights, but I think it would be a healthy adjustment for the United States to respect and believe in their government a little more... which is something that is difficult to do given the current administrations idiocy.

The benefits of wire-tapping and maintaining a strong police force outweigh the costs. Again, if you haven't done anything wrong, you won't find trouble with the government (most likely).

KP1;13914820']
The benefits of wire-tapping and maintaining a strong police force outweigh the costs. Again, if you haven't done anything wrong, you won't find trouble with the government (most likely).

Rather depends what you consider 'wrong'. Or - perhaps more importantly... what your (local?) government thinks 'wrong'.

There's a certain amount of reason for Yanks to be paranoid about their government.

KP1;13914820']You know what they say... "Mussolini made the trains run on time." And now, we see countries like China and Russia with stricter governmental control having huge economic gains.

Oh yeah, I'd trade some independence for a strong economy!

I wouldn't suggest having the government control the media or getting rid of basic human rights, but I think it would be a healthy adjustment for the United States to respect and believe in their government a little more... which is something that is difficult to do given the current administrations idiocy.

Are you saying that there's no media bias now?

Wait, getting rid of human rights...? Does the patriot act come to mind at all? That seems like a step in that direction.

And call me crazy, but I think by definition of what this country stands for, we should be wary of our government at all times. The constitution was designed to prevent the government from trampling over people's rights.

The benefits of wire-tapping and maintaining a strong police force outweigh the costs.

Prove it.

Again, if you haven't done anything wrong, you won't find trouble with the government (most likely).

Wait until you're on the phone talking about some type of traffic violation that you committed, and the police end up mailing you a ticket. They have proof that you did it because they have a recording of you admitting to the crime. Don't tell me that wouldn't torque your nuts.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Right Ben?

Hey, your strawman. I never mentioned putting soldiers on the street.

Not a strawman, a misunderstanding. I thought you were supporting what Zilam and Skyland were claiming.



Your lack of ability to comprehend isn't actually a very good assurance.

The military has guns and manpower - the two things (American) policing seems to consider to be fundamental. Anything over that is gravy.

Do I think the military will be used as a de facto police force? No.

Do I think they could? Absolutely.

Am I arguing they might, in this instance? No.

Then why the hell are we arguing? My spat was with the unreasonable "troops on the street argument that Zilam and Skyland were making.

You're ignoring the QUESTION. He was asked how he planned to reduce urban crime.

I'll make this easy for you - this means his answer will be a comment on his intention. So - when he says "we need to do... the obvious. We might look at what Rudy Giuliani did in New York City..." it's a reference to a policy decision.

He's not saying 'oh look' - he's saying 'AS POLICY, we might look..."

In context, talking about tactics isn't just a meander - he's actually fleshing out an, admittedly-loose-at-this-stage, response to the question.

And what's wrong with using the strategy Giuliani embraced? It worked quite well, and McCain included as an addition aggressive civil rights prosecution and and end to Justice Department cronyism.



And American Presidents have never dared to change any of the rules.

It would take a hell of a lot to change Posse Comitatus.



Where does the ABC quote come from? It looks like you're adding words, to try to change the meaning.

What Giuliani did was comparable to what the troops have been doing in Iraq. If McCain is offering this as his solution, he's offering a policy comparable to what troops are doing in Iraq.

Even HE says that those tactics are comparable to what we are doing in Iraq!


The ABC Quote comes from the bottom of the page, just look a little harder and you'll see it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/a-surge-on-the.html