New Israeli Government is a Horror Show

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case in point:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/

Here is the report that article mentions:

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf

Can you show me where it says the police should be federalized?

Let's further address this, shall we? Start with the title. If policing of communities is a state and local issue, then why do we need a Presidential task force?

Furthermore, why is the issue so 'urgent' as the report states?

And then there's this: especially in light of recent events around the country that have underscored the need for and importance of lasting collaborative relationships between local police and the public.

The President and First Lady have been awfully 'involved' in race relations, Obama, of course with Martin and Brown, as well as his Harvard Professor friend. The First Lady's message via a recent commencement speech had a much different flavor than Denzel Washington's commencement speech at another university, further emphasizing how they both feel about race relations in the US.

Let's cap that with the persistent involvement of the DOJ, at the drop of a hat, in police cases. They've had to eat said hat as well.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case in point:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/obama-unveils-national-obamalaw-plan/

Here is the report that article mentions:

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf

Can you show me where it says the police should be federalized?

Let's further address this, shall we? Start with the title. If policing of communities is a state and local issue, then why do we need a Presidential task force?

Furthermore, why is the issue so 'urgent' as the report states?

And then there's this: especially in light of recent events around the country that have underscored the need for and importance of lasting collaborative relationships between local police and the public.

The President and First Lady have been awfully 'involved' in race relations, Obama, of course with Martin and Brown, as well as his Harvard Professor friend. The First Lady's message via a recent commencement speech had a much different flavor than Denzel Washington's commencement speech at another university, further emphasizing how they both feel about race relations in the US.

Let's cap that with the persistent involvement of the DOJ, at the drop of a hat, in police cases. They've had to eat said hat as well.

I'm sorry, you said that Obama wants to federalize local police and pointed to an article about that report as proof. Can you show me where that report calls for federalization of local police or not?

[Anonymous]

You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

[Anonymous]

Where also does the militarization of state and local forces coming from?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

I asked you to show me evidence to support the allegation you made. Why are you asking me questions rather than providing evidence? Can you support your accusation or not?

[Anonymous]

OP: these are just a bunch of quotes you listed; you can't define a persons whole life with a minuscule few soundbites.

And maybe you cherry-picked them or took them out of context; actually, I see on the first few pages that you DID take them out of context. What would we expect from the laughably-biased "news" sources you cited?

Besides, the government was just formed; they have hardly even had any chance to govern and you already launch viscous character attacks against them.

How do you know how they will govern? You have a crystal ball or something? You DONT know.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

I asked you to show me evidence to support the allegation you made. Why are you asking me questions rather than providing evidence? Can you support your accusation or not?

And I said freedom is taken bit by bit. Which is what I maintained - that the goal is the Federalizations of our police force and the document Neil linked to is but a step in the process. The fact you won't address my points show me you know this as well.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

I asked you to show me evidence to support the allegation you made. Why are you asking me questions rather than providing evidence? Can you support your accusation or not?

And I said freedom is taken bit by bit. Which is what I maintained - that the goal is the Federalizations of our police force and the document Neil linked to is but a step in the process. The fact you won't address my points show me you know this as well.

Your "points" such as they are, are without any support beyond your opinion. I have no interest in responding to your opinion. Where is the evidence that federalization is planned or being taken bit by bit? The report does not take any freedom. If you believe that it does, point out the portion of the report that documents freedom being taken. It appears that you have no actual evidence to support the allegations that you make.

When you assert that the President of the United States has a plan to federalize local police, you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. When you cannot back up that accusation with the slightest bit of evidence, you confirm that you are what you sound like.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:OP: these are just a bunch of quotes you listed; you can't define a persons whole life with a minuscule few soundbites.

And maybe you cherry-picked them or took them out of context; actually, I see on the first few pages that you DID take them out of context. What would we expect from the laughably-biased "news" sources you cited?

Besides, the government was just formed; they have hardly even had any chance to govern and you already launch viscous character attacks against them.

How do you know how they will govern? You have a crystal ball or something? You DONT know.

Two of my sources are the Jerusalem Post and the Independent? What do you have against those sources? The quotes are not presented in a misleading manner. Check the links that I provided. One poster claimed that a translation was wrong, but she later retracted that accusation. If you have evidence that demonstrates that those quotes don't reflect the personalities of the officials, please present it. But, I'm afraid that you will only find data that confirms the perception given by these quotes.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

I asked you to show me evidence to support the allegation you made. Why are you asking me questions rather than providing evidence? Can you support your accusation or not?

And I said freedom is taken bit by bit. Which is what I maintained - that the goal is the Federalizations of our police force and the document Neil linked to is but a step in the process. The fact you won't address my points show me you know this as well.

Your "points" such as they are, are without any support beyond your opinion. I have no interest in responding to your opinion. Where is the evidence that federalization is planned or being taken bit by bit? The report does not take any freedom. If you believe that it does, point out the portion of the report that documents freedom being taken. It appears that you have no actual evidence to support the allegations that you make.

When you assert that the President of the United States has a plan to federalize local police, you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. When you cannot back up that accusation with the slightest bit of evidence, you confirm that you are what you sound like.

And yet, you still won't address why the document Neil addresses is even necessary.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP: these are just a bunch of quotes you listed; you can't define a persons whole life with a minuscule few soundbites.

And maybe you cherry-picked them or took them out of context; actually, I see on the first few pages that you DID take them out of context. What would we expect from the laughably-biased "news" sources you cited?

Besides, the government was just formed; they have hardly even had any chance to govern and you already launch viscous character attacks against them.

How do you know how they will govern? You have a crystal ball or something? You DONT know.

Two of my sources are the Jerusalem Post and the Independent? What do you have against those sources? The quotes are not presented in a misleading manner. Check the links that I provided. One poster claimed that a translation was wrong, but she later retracted that accusation. If you have evidence that demonstrates that those quotes don't reflect the personalities of the officials, please present it. But, I'm afraid that you will only find data that confirms the perception given by these quotes.

I did not retract anything. You assumed I did
N

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

I asked you to show me evidence to support the allegation you made. Why are you asking me questions rather than providing evidence? Can you support your accusation or not?

And I said freedom is taken bit by bit. Which is what I maintained - that the goal is the Federalizations of our police force and the document Neil linked to is but a step in the process. The fact you won't address my points show me you know this as well.

Your "points" such as they are, are without any support beyond your opinion. I have no interest in responding to your opinion. Where is the evidence that federalization is planned or being taken bit by bit? The report does not take any freedom. If you believe that it does, point out the portion of the report that documents freedom being taken. It appears that you have no actual evidence to support the allegations that you make.

When you assert that the President of the United States has a plan to federalize local police, you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. When you cannot back up that accusation with the slightest bit of evidence, you confirm that you are what you sound like.

And yet, you still won't address why the document Neil addresses is even necessary.

Don't try to change the subject. You are a nut-job who believes the President is going to federalize local police and can't provide any evidence to support your accusation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not stupid. Why does the report and subsequent involvement exist and why is it urgent?

I asked you to show me evidence to support the allegation you made. Why are you asking me questions rather than providing evidence? Can you support your accusation or not?

And I said freedom is taken bit by bit. Which is what I maintained - that the goal is the Federalizations of our police force and the document Neil linked to is but a step in the process. The fact you won't address my points show me you know this as well.

Your "points" such as they are, are without any support beyond your opinion. I have no interest in responding to your opinion. Where is the evidence that federalization is planned or being taken bit by bit? The report does not take any freedom. If you believe that it does, point out the portion of the report that documents freedom being taken. It appears that you have no actual evidence to support the allegations that you make.

When you assert that the President of the United States has a plan to federalize local police, you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. When you cannot back up that accusation with the slightest bit of evidence, you confirm that you are what you sound like.

And yet, you still won't address why the document Neil addresses is even necessary.

Don't try to change the subject. You are a nut-job who believes the President is going to federalize local police and can't provide any evidence to support your accusation.

I found plenty. Neil summarized it well, and the document he linked to shows the Feds have a whole plan on how to get involved with state and local police. Obama himself has said they need to be 'retrained'.

This is the very same subject. I am not accepting your change of subject, which seems to be attacking me, rather than discussing the document Neil linked to.

[Anonymous]

Who the hell is Neil? Is this some wing nut friend of yours that I am supposed to know by first name?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I found plenty. Neil summarized it well, and the document he linked to shows the Feds have a whole plan on how to get involved with state and local police. Obama himself has said they need to be 'retrained'.

This is the very same subject. I am not accepting your change of subject, which seems to be attacking me, rather than discussing the document Neil linked to.

I linked to the document myself. Please show me in that document where any freedoms are being taken away as you said they were or steps are being taken to federalize the local police. You have made a very specific and clear allegation. The allegation makes you sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you can provide evidence to support your charges. So far, you haven't been able to do so.