looks and feels like we are being 'set-up' by the bushgang

[donsu]

they won't give Homeland Security any money

they want guns in every living space

they are training troops on urban warfare, even training in our cities

etc.

Why? What is the bottom line? (perpetual Draft? keeping americans quiet and obedient, something else?)

[barbaraann]

1. Chaos, death, slavery--supreme wealth and power for the elite.

It's the Skull and Bones way.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. By George, I think you've got it...

It's just no fun sipping coctails if you can't hear the mournful cries of the starving in the distance...

[w13rd0]

2. Correction...

...they want their unquestioning, willfully ignorant supporters (brownshirts) well armed. They certainly don't want to face off against well-armed 'liberals' or those that might otherwise disagree with them...

[displacedtexan]

3. fear

is the goal.
they're winning.
we need an fdr candidate, who will repeat his oh,so important words: we have nothing to fear but fear, itself.
security is an illusion.
locks are for the honest.
if they want in, they'll find a way.

[lakerace1]

4. o.k. give more to hls

but I wonder..... could we ever stop them from attacking us? I know we should try something, but what? no matter what you do you could do more. could this money be better spent like on national health care? should hls money be included in military spending? I don't know how much is enough.

[Oilwellian]

6. Actually.....

our intelligence sources worked rather well before 911. It's unfortunate Bush ignored their warnings of an imminent attack.

[lakerace1]

21. I'm confussed here

is hlsd a good thing to have or a bad thing to have. was it just a ploy, a set up have you, to spend more money on national defence and the military......... The hlsd wasn't bush's idea was it? I thought Joe Liberman asked for it long before bush supported it.

[lapislzi]

5. Just curious, but...

What is your evidence for the claim that "they want guns in every living space?" I consider myself reasonably well-informed, but I don't have that impression. My feeling is that they would like to encroach on all of our civil liberties, including that one.

Am I missing something?

For the record, I agree with all you other points, and although I would never own a gun, I support others' rights to do so (with restrictions/controls, similar to those imposed on motor vehicle owners).

[donsu]

10. the NRA owns congress

nt

[Emperor_Norton_II]

13. Um, no

If the NRA owned Congress, then there wouldn't be even the thin veneer of gnu-control laws that exist.

[lapislzi]

15. gnu control?

Do you have a license to operate that wildebeest, sir?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

17. No, but I do have a permit to deal in mail-order gazelles.

(Old Usenet trick: "gnu" instead of "gun" in order to throw keyword searches off and help contain gun control threads.)

Yrs in ancient lore,

[lapislzi]

14. Also a rather sweeping statement

are there stats on lobbying efforts of the NRA (which I am certain are huge) vs the influence of the drug companies? I think it could be argued that Pfizer owns more of Congress than the NRA (although I have no stats to back up that claim).

Furthermore, just because the NRA "owns" Congress (which they might), does it necessarily follow that they want everyone to own a weapon? They are, after all, lobbying to protect their own Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms...as they interpret same. I don't see gun ads on TV. Guns are expensive, and while not exactly difficult to obtain, not especially easy to acquire. I have a bigger beef with pharmaceutical companies than I do with the gun lobby. But that's just me.

Again, please let me qualify! I'm the furthest thing from a gun nut you're likely to find. I am merely deconstructing (see sig line) an assertion that I don't understand.

[donsu]

23. Ok - joint ownership of congress or

part of the consortium ownership of congress

[Margi49]

7. Like lakerace1 . . .

. . I wonder how much we can do about it. If the goal of the terrorists is simply to kill innocent Amaricans and cause confusion, chaos, etc. . .

It seems to me that even a relatively unsupported group could figure out dozens or even hundreds of ways to do that. If they were willing to give their own lives - which obviously many of them are - then there are hundreds of thousands of ways to do that.

As long as the US is set on being the world's bully these incidents are bound to occur. Any halfway serious group who wishes to - could probably destroy our nation with a few well selected and planned attacks over a few month period. This must be just as obvious to them and I'd be surprised if more than one group were not planning just such a scenario as we speak.

BTW This re-registration thing has me confused. I was previously registered as msmcghee. I'll try to figure out how to get my name back.

[msmcghee]

9. Checking to see if my registration is correct now.

nt

[newyawker99]

19. Hi Margi49!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tomp]

8. i was opposed to the creation of the department

i don't want it to get any money. the less the better.

we have an overly funded dept of defense, except it's acting like a dept of offense. we just need to get the dod to do what it's supposed to do.

[donsu]

11. I don't like it either - it's the bushgang that likes it

that's the point

[tomp]

16. sorry if i missed your main point.

(for the record, the dems originally proposed the idea of homeland sec and many voted for it)

i think there is no question that the junta (and its collaborators, including at least a considerable number of dems) are preparing to move into full fascism if they feel the need. the laws and the mechanisms are being set up.

i've heard a few posters talk about progressives obtaining guns to prepare for this eventuality. don't know about that, but we might want to start thinking about it.

as for the draft, yeah, i think rangel/conyers is a stalking horse for the draft to support u.s. imperialisms adventures at home and abroad (even though posse comitatus forbids the use of u.s. troops aganst civilians), despite their claims that they just want to make it fair and "know" the repubs will never pass it as is.

all of the above because the dmes and repubs are essentially on the same side, i.e., have the same ultimate goals (whatever it takes to support corporate interests) but have disagreements on how best to achieve those goals, the dems being slightly more inclined to paint a pretty face on it and throw a few more bones than the repubs.

hope that addresses the issue.

[Rex]

12. Training our troops in Iraq to quell the anger at home

when unemployment hits 20%. Gonna need more than local law enforcement to keep the people in line when they start to riot for food.

[mopaul]

20. new rome

empire, conquest, slavery, the usual despotic bullshit

[spanone]

22. mopaul strikes again...

that is just GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lapislzi]

24. oh, is THAT all?

and there I was getting worried.