• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

30 Signs That The USA Is Being Turned Into A Giant Prison

Saint Nick said:
Sorry, I can't take a website that looks like that seriously.
Click to expand...

Form over function, always. The packaging on the box is ALWAYS more important than what's in the box. Add that to the list of 30. This country is so far gone. The ability of its citizenry to reason is lost. I need a prison just to isolate myself from this stupidity.



Comments re #7: You're not shoplifting till you try to leave the store. The cops are full of it.
 
Last edited:
sm625 said:
[ ... ]
Comments re #7: You're not shoplifting till you try to leave the store. The cops are full of it.
Click to expand...
Surprisingly, that's not the case, at least in some states. Concealing merchandise on your person is considered shoplifting and grounds for arrest. They don't have to wait until you leave the store.

But yes, the example was a BS overreaction.
 
It's actually a myth that we're "becoming a police state." Anyone suggesting that is entirely unfamiliar with the enforcement of the Bill of Rights throughout American history. In 1800, it was a crime to criticize the POTUS. Today, such a statute would be thrown out very quickly. Until the late 19th century, there was no Constitutional requirement that illegally obtained evidence be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. Indeed, the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments were not consistently enforced and were interpreted narrowly until the Warren court era of the 1960's. There are many things that were gross violations of civil rights that we used to do that we do not do anymore. We used to sterilize the developmentally disabled. Mixed race marriage and sodomy were illegal. Things were NOT better in the past than they are now.

Many of the items on that list are anecdotes from which very little can be drawn in terms of broad conclusions. That the police were called because a girl kissed a boy in a Florida school means exactly what? Probably that a teacher or school administrator over-reacted to something and was an idiot. With most of those items, it isn't that what they're describing didn't happen. It's that it doesn't mean what they're suggesting it means.

Also, measures which are suggested by legislators and/or pending legislation is not yet as concerning as laws that are actually on the books. If we based our assessment of our civil rights on every piece of legislation that has ever been suggested then we'd likely conclude that we're worse off than Stalinist Russia, because virtually everything has been proposed at one time our another.

Certainly electronic surveillance is highly concerning and we need to be aware of it and vigilant in opposing it where it isn't appropriate. And pending legilation should be monitored, and protested vigorously where it crosses the line. However, the kind of fear mongering that this article represents is a large part of what is wrong with America.

Increasingly we are motivated by fear: fear or terrorism, fear of the government, fear of police, fear of immigrants, fear of liberals, fear of conservatives, fear of Christians, fear of atheists, fear of Muslims, fear of Jews, fear of armaggedon, fear of China, fear of economic collapse, fear of everything. Fear is rarely a constructive motivator and usually does not result in sound decisions. Furthermore, those who promote fear virtually always have their own hidden agenda.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
It's actually a myth that we're "becoming a police state." Anyone suggesting that is entirely unfamiliar with the enforcement of the Bill of Rights throughout American history. In 1800, it was a crime to criticize the POTUS. Today, such a statute would be thrown out very quickly. Until the late 19th century, there was no Constitutional requirement that illegally obtained evidence be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. Indeed, the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments were not consistently enforced and were interpreted narrowly until the Warren court era of the 1960's. There are many things that were gross violations of civil rights that we used to do that we do not do anymore. We used to sterilize the developmentally disabled. Mixed race marriage and sodomy were illegal. Things were NOT better in the past than they are now.

Many of the items on that list are anecdotes from which very little can be drawn in terms of broad conclusions. That the police were called because a girl kissed a boy in a Florida school means exactly what? Probably that a teacher or school administrator over-reacted to something and was an idiot. With most of those items, it isn't that what they're describing didn't happen. It's that it doesn't mean what they're suggesting it means.

Also, measures which are suggested by legislators and/or pending legislation is not yet as concerning as laws that are actually on the books. If we based our assessment of our civil rights on every piece of legislation that has ever been suggested then we'd likely conclude that we're worse off than Stalinist Russia, because virtually everything has been proposed at one time our another.

Certainly electronic surveillance is highly concerning and we need to be aware of it and vigilant in opposing it where it isn't appropriate. And pending legilation should be monitored, and protested vigorously where it crosses the line. However, the kind of fear mongering that this article represents is a large part of what is wrong with America.

Increasingly we are motivated by fear: fear or terrorism, fear of the government, fear of police, fear of immigrants, fear of liberals, fear of conservatives, fear of Christians, fear of atheists, fear of armaggedon, fear of China, fear of economic collapse, fear of everything. Fear is rarely a constructive motivator and usually does not result in sound decisions. Furthermore, those who promote fear virtually always have their own hidden agenda.

- wolf
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after "in 1800..."

really dude? really? REALLLY!??!?!?!?
 
IceBergSLiM said:
I stopped reading after "in 1800..."

really dude? really? REALLLY!??!?!?!?
Click to expand...

You stopped reading after that? Read dude? Really? If you can't comprehend that I was addressing a historical arc, then I don't know what to say. I think I've made some sound points and you simply are not prepared to address them.
 
woolfe9999 said:
You stopped reading after that? Read dude? Really? If you can't comprehend that I was addressing a historical arc, then I don't know what to say. I think I've made some sound points and you simply are not prepared to address them.
Click to expand...

The deeply integrated level of persistent domestic electronic surveillance simply did not exist probably in their wildest dreams in 1800, apples and oranges. Having lax laws in one specific area(criticizing the president, sodomy whatever) doesn't negate the argument anyways nor is it sufficient proof that its a myth!! the TSA(for example) is not a MYTH!

Their example of the little girl getting arrested isn't an isolated incident of "over reaction" Taken as a whole these 30 reasons do allow you to draw broad conclusion about the path we are on.
 
IceBergSLiM said:
The deeply integrated level of persistent domestic electronic surveillance simply did not exist probably in their wildest dreams in 1800, apples and oranges. Having lax laws in one specific area(criticizing the president, sodomy whatever) doesn't negate the argument anyways nor is it sufficient proof that its a myth!! the TSA(for example) is not a MYTH!

Their example of the little girl getting arrested isn't an isolated incident of "over reaction" Taken as a whole these 30 reasons do allow you to draw broad conclusion about the path we are on.
Click to expand...

"Deeply integrated level of persistent domestic electronic surveillance." Wow, that was a mouth full. Did you have fun constructing that? I suggest capitalizing it for greater impact.

In all seriousness, I am not saying that modern technology does not present serious civil rights concerns that did not exist in the past. What I am saying is that we are not less free than we were in the past. In fact, all historical evidence suggests that the contrary is true.

And yes, that list is larded up with meaningless anecdotes because it's author wanted to pad it to make it seem as ominous as possible. We are a nation of over 300 million people, with 10's of thousands of public schools. A school administrator calling the police when they shouldn't probably happens once a week in this country. By law of averages, "rare" exceptions to the rule will occur quite frequently given enough trials and so anyone who wants to pad a list like this can find examples of anything they're looking for just by using Google. This is the problem with the types of anecdotal evidence in that list, and not coincidentally the same type of thing that people rely on to support most of their points on this forum.

- wolf
 
I think that Hitler II will rule Americans to be honest after society collapses from hyperinflation. I don't see how that couldn't happen unless Ron Paul becomes President. Offered no middle ground, I'm sure most people would rather have the USSR or Nazi Germany than a reinstatement of the articles of confederation and that's just sad. The confederalists are a very small minority.
 
wolf, I see what you're saying but I have to agree with Slim. The article is not the best, but the police state has started to show through. We get some progress on the small things like gay marriage or lights on cameras, but in other ways we're losing out like with the TSA and indefinite detention bullshit, other examples etc.
 
on another note we will soon be able to buy/cook horse meat in the US. Wasn't horse meat legal in the 1800's thru the depression era? I hear it tastes good. Europe eats it.
 
woolfe9999 said:
"Deeply integrated level of persistent domestic electronic surveillance." Wow, that was a mouth full. Did you have fun constructing that? I suggest capitalizing it for greater impact.

In all seriousness, I am not saying that modern technology does not present serious civil rights concerns that did not exist in the past. What I am saying is that we are not less free than we were in the past. In fact, all historical evidence suggests that the contrary is true.

And yes, that list is larded up with meaningless anecdotes because it's author wanted to pad it to make it seem as ominous as possible. We are a nation of over 300 million people, with 10's of thousands of public schools. A school administrator calling the police when they shouldn't probably happens once a week in this country. By law of averages, "rare" exceptions to the rule will occur quite frequently given enough trials and so anyone who wants to pad a list like this can find examples of anything they're looking for just by using Google. This is the problem with the types of anecdotal evidence in that list, and not coincidentally the same type of thing that people rely on to support most of their points on this forum.

- wolf
Click to expand...

It would be imeaningless if it were a one off. But all the examples were not isolated incidents as a I said before. It wasn't the first time out of 10's thousands schools that their was an over reaction. They also aren't meaningless in that they establish a history, a TREND .

Also the "not less free" statement is a load of crap. The government and its many tentacles have grown exponentially since the 1800's. Hell there are over 1 million (and growing) people working under "Top Secret" clearance in this country right now...that was more than the entirely population in 1800...
a Larger more intrusive government(not just talking federal, I'm talking at the state and local level too) by default this means more regulation, by default more regulation means LESS FREEDOM.
 
bfdd said:
wolf, I see what you're saying but I have to agree with Slim. The article is not the best, but the police state has started to show through. We get some progress on the small things like gay marriage or lights on cameras, but in other ways we're losing out like with the TSA and indefinite detention bullshit, other examples etc.
Click to expand...

It may depend on the time period you're analyzing. This article wants to make the point that "we're becoming a police state." Taking a long view, that statement is clearly false. Forget about what happened between 1800 and 1965 for the moment. It was in 2003 that our SCOTUS finally decided that it was unconstitutional to criminalize sodomy. Think about that - a police intrusion into what should be the most protected zone of privacy. That was fixed within the past decade. These kinds of issues - the right to criticize the government, illegal search and seizure, involuntary sterilization, anti-miscegeny laws, anti-sodomy laws, are HUGE liberty issues.

In the shortrun, of course things can move in one direction or another. But that has always been the case. I have no problem with concerning ourselves about many of the things mentioned in that article. I;m very concerned about a few of those items, particularly the first item listed. It's losing all historical perspective and drawing ridiculous conclusions, such as ignorant comparisons to Stalin or Hitler, that I object to. And I also object to deceptive techniques that are used to falsely inflate an authors point by adding irrelevant anecdotes to a list that also contains legitimate points. If the point has merit, there is no need to artificially inflate it.

I guess my message is: be concerned, but don't hyper-ventilate. Or as the great Douglas Adams would say: Don't Panic!

- wolf
 
IceBergSLiM said:
It would be imeaningless if it were a one off. But all the examples were not isolated incidents as a I said before. It wasn't the first time out of 10's thousands schools that their was an over reaction. They also aren't meaningless in that they establish a history, a TREND .

Also the "not less free" statement is a load of crap. The government and its many tentacles have grown exponentially since the 1800's. Hell there are over 1 million (and growing) people working under "Top Secret" clearance in this country right now...that was more than the entirely population in 1800...
a Larger more intrusive government(not just talking federal, I'm talking at the state and local level too) by default this means more regulation, by default more regulation means LESS FREEDOM.
Click to expand...

No trend is shown in that article. I have no reason to believe that such a trend exists until it is proven. From what I can see, google will bring you to news articles pertaining mainly to events that occurred in the relatively recent past. If a school administrator inappropriately called the police in 1968, we likely wouldn't know about it. Nor is the event an example of a "police state" even if it was a trend. The "police state" would be if someone gets arrested for doing something innocuous. People calling the police is meaningless. Anyone can call the police. It's what the police do when they get there that matters.

A larger number of people employed by government does not make us less free. That is a core ideological fallacy right there. It matters a lot what government does. It matters less how "large" it is. Furthermore, government is not the only institution that can curtail freedom. I honestly think "libertarians" don't understand that. If they did, they'd see that some things that government does are a net gain to our freedom rather than a net loss. If a corporation is dumping toxic waste, they are limiting your freedom of movement. If the government says they can't do that, they are imposing a limited restriction on the liberty of a narrow interest that promotes liberty for the broader public. Since the libertarian has bought into the fallacy that only government can restrict liberty, he sees that as a net loss of freedom when in fact it's the opposite.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
It may depend on the time period you're analyzing. This article wants to make the point that "we're becoming a police state." Taking a long view, that statement is clearly false. Forget about what happened between 1800 and 1965 for the moment. It was in 2003 that our SCOTUS finally decided that it was unconstitutional to criminalize sodomy. Think about that - a police intrusion into what should be the most protected zone of privacy. That was fixed within the past decade. These kinds of issues - the right to criticize the government, illegal search and seizure, involuntary sterilization, anti-miscegeny laws, anti-sodomy laws, are HUGE liberty issues.

In the shortrun, of course things can move in one direction or another. But that has always been the case. I have no problem with concerning ourselves about many of the things mentioned in that article. I;m very concerned about a few of those items, particularly the first item listed. It's losing all historical perspective and drawing ridiculous conclusions, such as ignorant comparisons to Stalin or Hitler, that I object to. And I also object to deceptive techniques that are used to falsely inflate an authors point by adding irrelevant anecdotes to a list that also contains legitimate points. If the point has merit, there is no need to artificially inflate it.

I guess my message is: be concerned, but don't hyper-ventilate. Or as the great Douglas Adams would say: Don't Panic!

- wolf
Click to expand...

The time to be concerned has passed. They are infiltrating faster than we can keep up with. With every new technology they are finding ways to use it as a weapon/surveillance against citizens not enemies.
 
woolfe9999 said:
No trend is shown in that article. I have no reason to believe that such a trend exists until it is proven. From what I can see, google will bring you to news articles pertaining mainly to events that occurred in the relatively recent past. If a school administrator inappropriately called the police in 1968, we likely wouldn't know about it. Nor is the event an example of a "police state" even if it was a trend. The "police state" would be if someone gets arrested for doing something innocuous. People calling the police is meaningless. Anyone can call the police. It's what the police do when they get there that matters.

A larger number of people employed by government does not make us less free. That is a core ideological fallacy right there. It matters a lot what government does. It matters less how "large" it is. Furthermore, government is not the only institution that can curtail freedom. I honestly think "libertarians" don't understand that. If they did, they'd see that some things that government does are a net gain to our freedom rather than a net loss. If a corporation is dumping toxic waste, they are limiting your freedom of movement. If the government says they can't do that, they are imposing a limited restriction on the liberty of a narrow interest that promotes liberty for the broader public. Since the libertarian has bought into the fallacy that only government can restrict liberty, he sees that as a net loss of freedom when in fact it's the opposite.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Brilliant example but unfortunately as shown in the article repeatedly......our government isn't solely or even mostly engaged in these Toxic Clean up acts good will through regulation. Hell, if we applied the 80/20 rule here to government regulation and intrusion into personal lives, what side of that ratio would fall under your toxic waste example?
 
wolf there are still a ton of liberty issues left to mull over, but we have idiots with "morals" or "religious convictions" or just straight up misinformation in some cases. when we still can't get over the conversation of "gay marriage" and we're compounding the police state with things like an overarching TSA or Homeland Security bullshit it doesn't look good for us. To much infighting over stupid bullshit liberties others take for granted and not enough work getting done to build towards a brighter future for all.
 
Don't take what I said the wrong way. I still would agree that this country is fucked. I personally plan to leave the country once I obtain citizenship elsewhere. I was just saying the website looks somewhat comical and incredulous.
 
Wolf mentioned FEAR! as being a major factor in an evolving police state, but I think it's one of many problems and it's even a factor because of another issue- what I call the "baby syndrome."

Fear plays a part but it has always played a part in society and politics for centuries. What's different today, and the thing that magnifies the fear factor, is a 4 decades long process of over sterilization, over sanitation, hyper sensitization and over babyfication within society that promotes fear, panic, zero-tolerance, and a whole host of silly overreactions that usually only tie us down and give more responsibility and authority to a higher power. Let's face it, as a society today we are generally much more apt to allow controls and intrusions because we are in some sort of race to create this secure, antiseptic, anesthetic society. It's the 2 year old who stumbles and gets helped up by the parent writ large. We are the two year old and the hell with allowing us to deal with challenge, we want to be pulled up every single time.

It's not some malicious fear mongering like some here like to paint so much, it's more about a society that accepts the fear mongering because were too damn lazy and have too much faith in "the parent" to take care of us instead of trying to do it ourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top